BEG17 and Ors v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.3)

[2018] FCCA 3525

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BEG17 & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.3) [2018] FCCA 3525

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs.

Legislation:
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.44.15(1)

First Applicant: BEG17

Second Applicant: BET17

Third Applicant: BEU17

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: BRG 257 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Jarrett

Hearing date: On the papers

Date of Last Submission: 2 November 2018

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 16 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr Boccabella

Solicitors for the Applicants: Chand Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr J Byrnes

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore

The Second Respondent entered a submitting appearance

ORDERS

1. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application fixed in the sum of $7,467.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 257 of 2017

BEG17

First Applicant

BET17

Second Applicant

BEU17

Third Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter I delivered judgment on 26 October, 2018.  I dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review that was filed on 21 March, 2017.  There had been a precedent application for an extension of time, which I had allowed.  The question of costs arose, about which I had not received any submissions.  Accordingly, on 26 October, I made some directions about the delivery of submissions concerning the question of costs.

2. The first respondent has provided those submissions.  The applicants have not made any submissions in accordance with those orders.  In the circumstances, it seems that they are not of a mind to do so.

3. The first respondent seeks his costs of the application that was dismissed, fixed in the sum of $7,467. There is no reason, demonstrated in the material, why the first respondent should not have its costs of the application fixed in accordance with r.44.15(1) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, and it is appropriate to make that order.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Jarrett.

Date: 30 November 2018