KUMAR v Minister for Immigration (No.2)
[2003] FMCA 225
•24 January 2003
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KUMAR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION (No.2) | [2003] FMCA 225 |
| MIGRATION – Application for costs – Applicant to pay Respondent’s costs pursuant to the Federal Court Rules. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B(1) |
| Applicant: | RAJESH KUMAR |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | MZ 613 of 2002 |
| Delivered on: | 24 January 2003 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Hearing date: | 29 October 2002 |
| Judgment of: | Bryant CFM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Porceddu |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Armstrong Ross |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Riley |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson Waldron |
ORDERS
THAT the Applicant pay the Respondents costs pay the Respondents costs to be agreed, or in default of agreement, to be taxed pursuant to the Federal Court Rules 1976.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MZ 613 of 2002
| RAJESH KUMAR |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter comes before me by way of an application for costs. The respondent has now sought an order for costs in view of the dismissal of the application made under Section 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for prerogative relief in respect of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal.
Written submissions have been made by the applicant and respondent in relation to costs. The applicant seeks costs in the sum of $10,000 comprising $2,520 council fee and $7,480 costs and disbursements.
The applicant concedes that costs should follow the event and that the application is liable to pay the respondent’s costs but the amount of those costs is disputed.
The amount sought by the respondent is $10,000 including council fees. The applicant contends that this sum is excessive and that a figure of $5,000 inclusive of council fees would be more appropriate.
It is not possible for a Federal Magistrate to embark upon an exercise in taxing costs and it is not immediately apparent to me in regard to the work involved in the matter whether or not the costs sought by the respondent are reasonable. Although I prefer to stick to costs, it seems to me that the only fair way that the question of costs can be properly determined is to order a taxation and make an order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be agreed, or in default of agreement, to be taxed pursuant to the Federal Court Rules 1976.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Bryant CFM
Associate: Peter Smith
Date: 6 June 2003
0
0
0