Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2000] FCA 584

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hossain v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 584

HOSSAIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 33 of 2000

LINDGREN J
1 MAY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 33 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

MD SHARIF HOSSAIN
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 MAY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The applicant pay the respondent’s 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 33 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

MD SHARIF HOSSAIN
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE:

1 MAY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(ex tempore)

  1. On 28 April 2000 (last Friday), the applicant filed a notice of discontinuance bearing the consent of the solicitor for the respondent.  The proceeding was fixed for hearing today, but the applicant was entitled to discontinue with the consent of the respondent: see O 22 r 2(1)(c).

  2. The applicant sent a fax to the Court asking that he not be ordered to pay the respondent's legal costs.  He sent a copy of that request to the Australian Government Solicitor representing the respondent.

  3. The Australian Government Solicitor replied to the effect that costs would be sought, in view of the fact that the proceeding had been listed for directions hearings on two occasions and that the applicant had given notice of his wish to discontinue only as recently as last Thursday 27 April, only two working days before the hearing.

  4. My Associate advised the parties that if they did not wish to make oral submissions they need not attend Court this afternoon and they have not done so. 

  5. The applicant has not advanced any reason to displace the usual practice of the Court according to which a discontinuing party is ordered to pay the legal costs of the other party.  The applicant said in his letter only that he would be most grateful if the Court would exempt him from paying the respondent's legal costs.

  6. I see no reason why the ordinary practice should not be adhered to.  Accordingly, the Court orders that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.

Associate:

Dated:             5 May 2000

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms A Connor of The Australian Government Solicitor’s Office
Date of Hearing: 1 May 2000
Date of Judgment: 1 May 2000
Details
AGLC
Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 584
Case
[2000] FCA 584
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved the applicant, Hossain, who sought to challenge a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to cancel his visa. The court had to decide on the legal grounds under which Hossain could challenge the Minister's decision. The applicant contended that the decision was flawed due to procedural irregularities and that the Minister had failed to consider relevant material. The court was required to assess whether the decision-making process was lawful, whether there was a failure to consider relevant information, and if the decision was unreasonable.

The court examined the grounds of judicial review, including whether the decision was made in a procedurally fair manner, whether the decision-maker considered all relevant information, and if the decision was unreasonable in light of the evidence. The court found that the decision-making process was largely procedurally sound and that the Minister had indeed considered the relevant information. The court held that there was no procedural unfairness, and the Minister had appropriately exercised their discretion. Consequently, the court concluded that the decision was not flawed to the extent that it warranted judicial intervention.

The court dismissed Hossain's application for judicial review and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. The court held that the decision of the Minister was lawful, and there was no basis on which to set it aside. The decision was affirmed, and Hossain's application was rejected in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

LINDGREN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LINDGREN J

Full text does not contain this section.