Borkumah v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 1282

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Borkumah v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1282

BORKUMAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 331 of 1999

BURCHETT J

SYDNEY
7 SEPTEMBER 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 331 of 1999

BETWEEN:	HOPE CHRISTIAN BORKUMAH Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	BURCHETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 SEPTEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1)The application be dismissed;

(2)There be no order as to costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 331 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	HOPE CHRISTIAN BORKUMAH Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	BURCHETT J
DATE:	7 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter has been called on for hearing.  The applicant is not present in person, he has no legal representation and he has not at any stage of this application had legal representation.  I am informed by the solicitor appearing for the Minister, a solicitor of the Australian Government Solicitor's office, that the applicant did call on the Australian Government Solicitor's office yesterday, when he spoke to a principal legal officer in that office, Ms Nanson, to advise her that he wished to withdraw his application and would do so today.

2. There was some discussion about costs, and the Australian Government Solicitor did expect that he would be here, not because there was any doubt about his confirming his withdrawal, but because of the indication given to him that the Minister would seek a costs order upon his doing so.  He is in fact not here, but I am perfectly satisfied, in the light of what I have been told, that the applicant does not desire to pursue his application, and accordingly the application is dismissed.

3. So far as the matter of costs is concerned, it is not suggested that this case is any different from other cases that have come before the court where applicants have been notified of their appeal rights - being persons unfamiliar, or certainly not thoroughly familiar with our legal system - and have been told that they have a right to appeal to this Court, but without adequate notice of the extremely restrictive provisions which make such an appeal, in many cases, worthless. 

4. In the circumstances of such cases, Lehane J, in Q v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1202, and I myself in a number of other cases, have taken the view that an order for costs will, at any rate, not always be appropriate. In this case, the applicant has saved the Minister the incurring of further costs in the pursuit of the application, and he has done so reasonably, it seems to me, under all the circumstances. I decline to make any order as to costs.

5. Shortly after these reasons were given, the applicant arrived at Court, and was informed that the Court, on being informed of his desire to withdraw the application, had dismissed it but had made no order as to costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Burchett J.

Associate:

Dated:  14 September 1999

No appearance for the applicant; later, the applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms E Warner of the Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	7 September 1999
Date of Judgment:	7 September 1999