Migration Agents Registration Authority v Griffiths

Case [2001] FCA 1610


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Migration Agents Registration Authority v Griffiths [2001] FCA 1610

MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY v DAMIAN GERRARD GRIFFITHS

Q 97 of 2001

FRENCH, DOWSETT and GYLES JJ
16 NOVEMBER 2001
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 97 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
APPELLANT

AND:

DAMIAN GERRARD GRIFFITHS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

FRENCH, DOWSETT & GYLES JJ

DATE:

16 NOVEMBER 2001

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. We delivered judgment in this matter on 24 August 2001, indicating at that time that in our opinion there should be no order as to costs.  We were subsequently asked to receive submissions in support of an application by the respondent for an order in his favour.  We have now received written submissions from both sides.  It is not appropriate to revisit the issues in the appeal with which we have adequately dealt in our published reasons. 

  2. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that the consequences of the interlocutory order which was the subject of the appeal are such that it is inappropriate to seek to unravel them by further judicial intervention.  Indeed, it may be impossible to do so.  In those circumstances we do not consider that there is any firm basis in principle for making an order for costs in favour of the respondent.  Given the unusual situation with which the Court is faced, we also consider that it would be inappropriate to accede to the appellant’s request for an order for the costs of and incidental to its submissions upon the issue of costs.

  3. There will be no order as to costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:             16 November 2001

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr P G Bickford
Solicitor for the Appellant: Blake Dawson Waldron
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Bell QC and Mr M J Burns
Solicitor for the Respondent: McCullough Robertson Lawyers
Date of Hearing: 24 August 2001
Date of Judgment: 16 November 2001
Details
AGLC
Migration Agents Registration Authority v Griffiths [2001] FCA 1610
Case
[2001] FCA 1610
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia delivered a decision in the case of Migration Agents Registration Authority v Griffiths. The appellant, the Migration Agents Registration Authority, sought an order for costs from the respondent, Damian Gerrard Griffiths, following an earlier interlocutory order. The initial case involved the authority's appeal against a decision made by a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The court's primary focus was on whether it should grant the appellant's request for costs in the current proceedings.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was a firm basis in principle to make an order for costs in favour of the respondent and if it was appropriate to accede to the appellant's request for an order for the costs of and incidental to its submissions on the issue of costs. The court had to consider the consequences of the interlocutory order and whether further judicial intervention was necessary or even possible. The court's published reasons for the earlier judgment provided the context for these considerations.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that it was inappropriate to revisit the issues in the earlier appeal, as they had already been adequately addressed in the published reasons. The court determined that the consequences of the interlocutory order made it unsuitable to seek to unravel them through further judicial intervention, and it might be impossible to do so. Consequently, the court found that there was no firm basis in principle for making an order for costs in favour of the respondent. Additionally, the court considered it inappropriate to grant the appellant's request for an order for the costs of and incidental to its submissions on the issue of costs, given the unusual situation. Therefore, the court decided that there would be no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.