RefNZ Case Search
High Court Cases
M v Refugee Status
Appeals
Authority (No. 6)
High Court Auckland CIV-2010-404-003298
21 December 2010
Courtney J
Judicial review -
costs - whether plaintiff in person in modest circumstances justified
departure from principle that costs should follow the event - whether
reduction in costs appropriate - High Court Rules, Rule 14.7
The plaintiff, a citizen
of Romania, unsuccessfully challenged by way of judicial review a
decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in which it refused to
recognise him as a refugee. See M v
Refugee Status Appeals Authority (High Court Auckland,
CIV2010-404-003298, 17 September 2010, Courtney J). The Crown then
sought an order for costs in the sum of $11,624.09.
Application by
defendant for costs approved
No cases
mentioned
in judgment
Counsel
Plaintiff in person
P
McCarthy for
defendants
[Editorial note: Compare the
observations of Randerson J in E
& W v Refugee Status Appeals Authority (High Court Auckland,
CIV-2007-404-4841, 9 April 2008) at [7]:
[7] I make it clear
that the order
indicating an award of costs which would otherwise have been made is
not to be taken as a precedent necessarily applicable to all judicial
review proceedings of this nature. In each case the Court will be
required to exercise its discretion. It is recognised that in cases of
this kind the plaintiffs in judicial review proceedings, whether for
immigration status or refugee status, will themselves be impecunious or
in difficult circumstances and legal aid may not be available to them.]
COURTNEY J [1] In my
decision 17 December 2010 I dismissed the plaintiff’s application for
judicial review. The defendant has applied for costs of $11,624.09, the
calculation for which is contained in counsel’s memorandum 23 September
2010. The plaintiff resists an award of costs being made on the basis
that an award of costs would lead to undue hardship. He has outlined
his financial situation in a memorandum. It shows a very modest
situation with a small amount in the bank, a modest motor vehicle,
liabilities to Inland Revenue and a modest income.
[2] One of the general principles
applicable to the award of costs under R 14 of the High Court Rules is
that the unsuccessful party should pay costs. R 14.7 does permit the
Court to refuse to make an order of costs or to reduce costs that would
otherwise be payable in certain specific circumstances, none of which
apply in this case. R 14.7(g), however, does permit the Court to refuse
to make an order or to reduce costs otherwise payable where:
Some other reason
exists which justifies the court refusing costs or reducing costs
despite the principle that the determination of costs should be
predictable and expeditious.
[3] In this case the fact that the
plaintiff is in modest circumstances does not, in itself, justify
departing from the general principle that costs should follow the event
and there should be a strong element of predictability in the awarding
of costs. However, I do consider it appropriate to make a reduction in
the costs that would otherwise be awarded in recognition of the
plaintiff’s circumstances.
[4] I make an order of costs in the
defendant’s favour of $5,000.
Solicitor for the
defendant: Crown Law Office (Wellington)