BU (India) v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2016] NZHC 2207 (19 September 2016)

Last Updated: 17 October 2016

NOTE: THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPELLANT AND OF HIS CLAIM OR STATUS MUST BE MAINTAINED PURSUANT TO S 151 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT 2009.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-3173 [2016] NZHC 2207

BETWEEN	BU AND BU (INDIA) Applicants
AND	THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL First Respondent A REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	R Pidgeon for Applicants M Conway and B Charmley for Second Respondent
Judgment:	19 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J AS TO COSTS

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 September 2016 at 2.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ...............................

Solicitors: Pidgeon Law, Auckland

Crown Law, Wellington

BU AND BU (INDIA) v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2016] NZHC 2207 [19

September 2016]

[1] On 1 July 2016, I declined the applicants’ applications for leave to appeal and to judicially review the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. The refugee and protection officer seeks orders for costs on a 2B basis and disbursements of $9,824.80. I have correspondence from Counsel for the applicants indicating that:

(a) The female applicant instructs she accepts the quantum on a 2B basis is accurate and that costs should follow the event in the usual way.

(b) He does not have instructions from the male applicant, who is no longer in New Zealand.

[2] There being no opposition to an award of costs on the usual basis, namely that costs follows the event, there shall be an order against both applicants on a category 2B basis, together with disbursements of $9,824.80.