WK v The Refugee Protection Officer, MBIE, Auckland [2018] NZHC 2069 (14 August 2018)

Last Updated: 17 August 2018

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-1012 [2018] NZHC 2069

UNDER	the Immigration Act 2009, ss 129-131, s 140
IN THE MATTER	of an appeal of a decision of the Refugee Status branch to decline an application for refugee status
BETWEEN	WK Applicant
AND	THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER, MBIE, AUCKLAND Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	R Pidgeon for the Applicant S Jerebine and T Burgess for the Respondent
Judgment:	14 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 August 2018 at 4:00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

..........................................

Solicitors / Counsel:

Mr R Pidgeon, Barrister, Auckland

Mr P Pang, Integritas Law Firm, Auckland

Ms S Jerebine and Ms T Burgess, Crown Law, Wellington

WK v THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER, MBIE, AUCKLAND [2018] NZHC 2069 [14 August 2018]

[1] WK applied for judicial review of a decision of a refugee and protection officer who refused to consider what was the fourth claim by WK for recognition as a refugee and protected person under the Immigration Act 2009. Following a defended hearing I dismissed the application.¹

[2] The respondent advised that costs would be sought if the application was dismissed. Directions were made for memoranda to be filed.

[3] The respondent sought costs of $26,983 on a 2B basis and disbursements of
$192.66.

[4] A memorandum in response from Mr Pidgeon, on behalf of WK, was filed. Mr Pidgeon advised that no issue was taken with the respondent’s quantification other than a claim for $5,575 for item 30 in schedule 3 to the Rules – plaintiff’s or defendant’s preparation of briefs or affidavits. The claim was for 2.5 days in accordance with the schedule. Mr Pidgeon, acknowledging that he had not acted for WK in the substantive proceeding, queried whether 2.5 days was reasonable.

[5] The respondent has agreed to reduce the claim to $3,345, which is the allowance on a 2A basis. That is a reasonable and responsible response. The reduced total, inclusive of disbursements, is $24,945.66.

[6] I am satisfied that the items now claimed are properly claimed and that there is no reason not to make an award of costs in this case.

[7] In consequence, there is an order that the applicant pay the respondent for costs and disbursements a total of $24,945.66.








Woodhouse J

¹ WK v The Refugee Protection Officer, MBIE, Auckland [2018] NZHC 514.