Joel v Migration Agents Registration Authority

[2001] FCA 186

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Joel v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2001] FCA 186

COSTS – application for review of decisions to require information and copies of documents from registered migration agent/qualified legal practitioner – success of application upon some but not other grounds – appropriate order as to costs.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Hughes v Western Australia Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) ATPR 40-748 referred to.
Dr Martens Australia Pty Ltd v Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2000] FCA 602 referred to.

ADRIAN PHILLIP JOEL v MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY NG 1027 OF 2000

CONTI J
SYDNEY
6 MARCH 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 1027 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	ADRIAN PHILLIP JOEL APPLICANT
AND:	MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 MARCH 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Respondent to pay one-quarter of the costs of the Applicant of the proceedings for judicial review.

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	NG 1027 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	ADRIAN PHILLIP JOEL APPLICANT
AND:	MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE:	6 MARCH 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (COSTS)

1. At the time of delivery of judgment in this matter on 22 December 2000, I directed the parties to provide written submissions as to the appropriate costs order to be made: see Joel v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2000] FCA 1919. Subsequently the Applicant has provided submissions in support of an order for costs entirely in his favour, or alternatively as to three-quarters of his costs, whilst the Respondent has contended for an order that each party bear his or its own costs, as the case may be.

2. As appears from para [25] of the judgment referred to in [1] above, the Applicant propounded some fourteen or so issues as grounds for review of three notices issued by the Respondent to the Applicant purportedly pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), some of which were overlapping in scope. As further appears from the following para [26], the Respondent for its part propounded three jurisdictional issues, though the second carried only an academic consequence.

3. In the result, the Applicant succeeded upon the following issues of particular significance:

   (i)In so far as the second notice required information as to advice given by the Respondent in relation to a certain migration class action, the same had no operation or effect, on the ground that to answer the same would involve infringement of legal professional privilege.

   (ii)In so far as the second notice required the provision of photocopies of the Applicant’s records, the same was invalid;

   (iii)In so far as the third notice in effect maintained the requirements of the second notice as to (i) and (ii) above, the same was also of no force or effect.

4. The Respondent succeeded however upon the following issues:

   (i)The first notice…