ASG18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
[2022] FedCFamC2G 971
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
ASG18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 971
File number(s): MLG 402 of 2018 Judgment of: JUDGE LAING Date of judgment: 17 November 2022 Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming decision not to grant a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa – proceedings discontinued by consent – dispute as to costs Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 9 Date of hearing: 17 November 2022 Place: Sydney Solicitor for the Applicant Applicant appeared by telephone Counsel for the First Respondent Ms K. McInnes Solicitor for the First Respondent Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
MLG 402 of 2018 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: ASG18
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE LAING
DATE OF ORDER:
17 NOVEMBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be changed to “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs” dispensing with the need for filing any further document in this regard.
2.By consent, the proceedings in this matter be discontinued.
3.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $5,497.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)JUDGE LAING
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa.
ORDERS SOUGHT AT HEARING
The matter was scheduled for a final hearing today. At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant informed the Court that he wished to discontinue these proceedings. The applicant explained to the Court that he was pursuing other visa applications with the benefit of legal assistance.
The Minister did not oppose an order being made by consent to the effect that the proceedings were discontinued.
Two further orders were sought by the Minister. The first concerned a change in name to reflect a change in title more generally. The second concerned costs, which the Minister sought to have fixed in the amount of $5,497.
RESOLUTION
Given the positions taken by the parties, I am prepared to make an order, by consent, that the proceedings be discontinued.
The applicant did not consent to the change of name, but did not oppose it. I accept that such orders are made in the ordinary course and that it is appropriate to make such an order.
The second order in respect of which consent was not given concerned the amount of costs to be ordered in consequence of the proceedings being discontinued.
The applicant sought that a lower amount be ordered, noting that he had discontinued the case which had resulted in less work for the Minister’s representatives. The applicant did not specify the lower amount that he proposed, but asked that the Court consider awarding a lower amount.
The amount sought by the Minister of $5,497 is an amount that accords with the Court’s scale in circumstances where migration proceedings have been discontinued. No reason has been given for why the amount proposed would not be appropriate, other than the applicant’s desire that the Court order a lower amount. I am satisfied that the amount sought by the Minister is appropriate, having regard to the Court’s scale and the work performed in these proceedings. In this regard, I note that considerable assistance was provided by the Minister to the Court in the work performed prior to the hearing. This is a matter in which evidence appears to have been prepared and submissions made in consciousness of the applicant’s lack of legal representation.
10 I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Laing.
Associate:
Dated: 17 November 2022
0
0
0