Equity Access Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation

[1989] FCA 361

JUDGMENT No. ........ ..... 3 6 l. ...l .$2..

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )	NO. G 3 of 1989

1

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN:  SHAHIN TAHMASEBI
Applicant

AND :  THE MINISTER FOR

IMMIGRATION, LOCAL

GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC

AFFAIRS

Respondent

9 June 1989

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

This is a matter which had been specially fixed for hearing later this year. It relates to decisions of the respondent Minister by his delegate in December 1988 in relation to the refusal of a grant of a temporary entry permit to the applicant and the decision not to grant entry or resident status to him.

have rendered the continuation of the proceedings academrc. respondent, by his delegate, has made further decisions which

Since the matter was set down for hearing the

The applicant has been granted a temporary entry permit authorising a stay in this country for twelve months, permitting him to engage in employment here during that time and ordering that he be released from detention pursuant to

S. 36A of the Migration Act, 1958.

Accordingly it is agreed that the applicant should be granted leave to discontinue the proceedings and the special fixture be vacated.

The only matter that is in issue between the parties is the quesstion of costs of the proceeding. It is of course always difficult to determine questions of costs where matters have either been settled or, as in this case, rendered academic or futile by supervening events. All that

the Court can do is to get the best picture it can of what .

the likely result would have been at the hearing.

I have heard the submission on behalf of the parties and

I am not persuaded that the likely result of the trial would

application. However, I do not reach that conclusion with	have been that the appliant would have succeeded in his	such confidence as would enable me to say that I think the likely result would be that he would fail.
Accordingly, I think the propery order for costs is that there should be no order as to the costs of any party. I
therefore make orders in accordance with the short minutes of order initialled by me and placed with the papers.

I certify that this and the preceding two

( 2 ) pages are a true copy of the reasons

for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr.

Justice Lockhart.

Date: 9 June 1989

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr. C.J. Stevens
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Craddock, Murray & Neumann
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	9 June 1989
Date of Judgment:	9 June 1989