Jordan (a pseudonym) v Secretary of Department of Home Affairs (No 2)

The case of Jordan (a pseudonym) v Secretary of Department of Home Affairs (No 2) involved the applicant, Jordan, seeking various orders from the court against the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs. Jordan sought relief including an injunction against being removed to Pakistan, and costs. The primary application for final relief sought by Jordan included quashing a decision to remove him to Pakistan, performing a duty to remove him from Australia, and being enjoined from removing him to Pakistan. Jordan also sought an order for detention at a specific address and costs. An interlocutory application for a stay of the proceedings was subsequently filed. The court had to decide on the appropriate exercise of its discretion to order costs and whether to grant a stay of the proceedings.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether the costs of the proceeding significantly exceeded the event-based "scale" amount at Schedule 2 of Division 1, Part 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). The court also had to consider the factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion to order costs, given that Jordan was wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the circumstances warranted the extraordinary exercise of the discretion to order a stay of the proceedings.

The court found that the costs of the proceedings significantly exceeded the event-based "scale" amount. However, given Jordan's complete lack of success, the court exercised its discretion not to order costs as agreed or taxed. The court also held that the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of the discretion to order a stay of the proceedings, as doing so would improperly secure the Court's intervention in the preservation of a status quo. The interlocutory application for a stay was therefore dismissed.

The court reserved costs in relation to the primary application. This decision highlights the court's approach to exercising its discretion in ordering costs and granting stays, taking into account the specific circumstances and outcomes of the proceedings.