Kamboj v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)
[2022] FCA 1241
•21 October 2022
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kamboj v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2022] FCA 1241
Appeal from: Kamboj v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FedCFamC2G 48 File number(s): NSD 1090 of 2021 Judgment of: GOODMAN J Date of judgment: 21 October 2022 Catchwords: COSTS – application for a fixed costs order under r 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 40.02(b), sch 3, item15 Cases cited: Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 146; (2017) 253 FCR 403 Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 7 Date of last submission/s: 14 September 2022 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Counsel for the Appellant: Mr P Berg Solicitor for the Appellant: Jacobs Legal Solicitor for the First Respondent: Minter Ellison Solicitor for the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs ORDERS
NSD 1090 of 2021 BETWEEN: SAURABH KAMBOJ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
GOODMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 OCTOBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $6,730.24.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GOODMAN J
On 13 September 2022, I made orders dismissing the appeal and requiring the appellant to pay the first respondent’s costs, as agreed or taxed. I also ordered that any application by the first respondent with respect to the quantum of costs was to be made within seven days of that date.
On 14 September 2022, the first respondent made an application for an order under r 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the first respondent’s costs be fixed in the sum of $6,730.24, or such other sum as the Court thinks fit.
I subsequently ordered that if the appellant wished to oppose the first respondent’s application, then he was to file any evidence and submissions by 7 October 2022, with such submissions to set out any objection to the first respondent’s application being dealt with on the papers.
The appellant has not filed any evidence or submissions, or otherwise indicated that he wishes to oppose the first respondent’s application. In view of the subject matter of the application and the absence of opposition to it, it is appropriate that the application be dealt with on the papers.
In support of the application the first respondent relies upon an affidavit of Ms Kerrie Pieri, a solicitor in the employ of the solicitors for the first respondent. In that affidavit Ms Pieri describes the work undertaken by the solicitors for the first respondent and by counsel for the respondent. The costs for that work total $7,087 and $1,414.99 respectively. Ms Pieri then suggests that it would be appropriate to reduce the solicitors’ fees by 25 per cent, taking the total fees to $6,730.24 ($5,315.25 plus $1,414.99).
The Court’s discretion with respect to costs is broad and includes the making of a lump sum order for costs. Such an order is appropriate in the present case given that: it accords with the Court’s preference for lump sum costs orders (Costs Practice Note at [3.3] and [4.1]; Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 146; (2017) 253 FCR 403 at 406-407 [16] and [19]); it will save the parties the time and costs of a taxation process; the costs appear to be proportionate to the complexity of the issues raised in the proceeding; and the amount sought is less than the amount that could be claimed in a short form bill for an appeal involving a migration decision that is dismissed after hearing ($7,241 as set out in the Rules, Schedule 3, Item 15).
I will make an order accordingly.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Goodman. Associate:
Dated: 21 October 2022
0
2
1