BAQ15 v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 899

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BAQ15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 899

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Considerations regarding award of costs less than as set out in Schedule to Rules of Court – factors relevant to exercise of Court’s discretion.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, s.79(1) & (3)

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.21.02(2), 44.15(1)

AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 216 CLR 473
Applicant S v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2004) 217 CLR 387
Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403
Corcoran v Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 864
Eat Media Pty Ltd v Mulready Media Pty Ltd (No.2) (2010) 267 ALR 573
Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 303
Ginos Engineering Pty Ltd v Autodesk Pty Ltd (2008) 249 ALR 371
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc.) (1986) ATPR ¶40-748
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Council of the Municipality of Botany v Secretary, Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (1992) 34 FCR 412
Noble & Baldwin (No.2) [2011] FMCA 700
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Playcorp Group of Companies Pty Ltd v Peter Bodum A/S (No.2) [2010] FCA 455
SZRTP v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection (2013) 277 FLR 469

Applicant: BAQ15

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: CAG 41 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Neville

Hearing date: 27 October 2015

Date of Last Submission: 27 October 2015

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 27 October 2015

Written reasons provided on: 22 April 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Applicant: Self represented

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Bird

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz, Canberra

ORDERS

1. The Application filed 16 June 2015 be dismissed.

2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs in the amount of $1500.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAG 41 of 2015

BAQ15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 27^th October 2015, the Court heard, and determined adversely to the Applicant (from the People’s Republic of China), an Application that sought (among other things) to quash a decision of the then Refugee Review Tribunal, made on 14^th May 2015.

2. In short compass, the Court accepted, and in large measure adopted as the Court’s reasons, the submissions provided by the First Respondent Minister (“the Minister”).

3. Upon delivering oral reasons in relation to the [substantive] Application to Review, the Court also made an Order for costs in favour of the Minister.  The amount was fixed in the sum of $1500.00.

4. On 6^th November 2015, the Court received a request for written reasons specifically and solely in relation to the Order regarding costs.  As important as reasons for costs are, the oppressive demands on this Court and its very broad jurisdiction are such that this is the first opportunity that the reasons sought for the award of costs are able to be addressed.  As indicated, these reasons are confined to the issue of the award of costs dated 27^th October 2015.

5. The outline of principle, and the consideration and disposition set out in the matter of AYK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor [2016] FCCA 898 (“AYK”), apply equally to this matter and should be read as the reasons for judgment in both matters.

6. Without repeating (other than for ease of reference to set out all of the authorities there referred to) but adopting, mutatis mutandis, what is set out in the matter of AYK to which I have just referred, for the reasons given in that matter, the Order for costs in the sum of $1500.00 was made in this matter.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Neville

Date: 22 April 2016