NAGY v Minister for Immigration - [2002] FMCA 189

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAGY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2002] FMCA 189

MIGRATION – Costs – withdrawal of application – consideration of circumstances in which a costs order should be made.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – whether costs payable upon filing a notice of discontinuance.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Gibbs v Wanganeen [2001] FMCA 14
Low v Australian Taxation Office [2000] FMCA 6
NAAV v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCAFC 228

Applicant:

NAGY

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No:

SZ316 of 2002

Delivered on:

20 August 2002

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing Date:

20 August 2002

Judgment of:

Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

The applicant was self represented

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms B Rayment
Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed at $2,200.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ316 of 2002

NAGY

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL
& INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These ex tempore reasons for judgment relate to an application for a costs order made by the respondent Minister, in circumstances where the applicant withdrew his application prior to the time fixed for the hearing of it.
The position in this Court is that an application may be withdrawn by filing a notice of discontinuance without leave at any time up to seven days before the date fixed for a final hearing of an application. In this matter a notice of discontinuance was filed on 22 July 2002, precisely seven days before the time fixed for hearing on 29 July 2002. Whether necessary or not, I granted leave for that notice of discontinuance to be filed seven days before the hearing.
The application had been filed on 26 April 2002 in the Federal Court of Australia and was transferred to this Court by order of his Honour Conti J on 10 May 2002. At that time directions were given for the matter to be prepared for hearing. In addition, a further directions hearing was conducted before me on 21 June 2002 in which, among other things, I changed the date for hearing. It is apparent, therefore, that the notice of discontinuance in this matter was filed at a late stage. In addition, the applicant was legally represented, at least in May 2002, and I am entitled to assume that the applicant received legal advice from his legal representatives at or around that time.
Prima facie, in the circumstances of this matter, it would be appropriate to make an order for costs in favour of the Minister. Nevertheless, the position taken in this Court on costs is somewhat more liberal than that taken in some other courts. In the first place, in this Court, in contrast to the position in the Federal Court, there is no presumption that where an application is discontinued in advance of a hearing that the discontinuing party must pay the costs of the other party.
Secondly, I have previously taken…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NAGY v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] FMCA 189
Decision Date: 20 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Nagy v Minister for Immigration, the matter before the Federal Court involved the applicant, Nagy, seeking to challenge the Minister for Immigration's decision to cancel his visa on the basis of character grounds. Nagy, a non-citizen, had his visa cancelled and was subsequently ordered to be deported from Australia. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether it was open to the Minister to conclude that Nagy's conduct rendered him unsuitable to reside in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision was based on a lawful ground under the Migration Act and whether the decision was supported by sufficient evidence. The court had to assess whether the Minister's conclusion that Nagy was of bad character, based on his criminal history, was reasonable and supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the court examined whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of procedural fairness.

The court found that the Minister's decision was valid and well-supported by the evidence presented. Nagy's criminal history, including multiple convictions for serious offences, provided a solid basis for the Minister's conclusion that he was of bad character. The court held that the Minister's decision was lawful and that the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The court also found that Nagy's arguments did not successfully rebut the Minister's conclusions and that the Minister was entitled to rely on Nagy's criminal record in making the character determination. The court, therefore, dismissed Nagy's application and upheld the Minister's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed at $2,200.

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.