Nair v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1441

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nair v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Ors [2000] FCA 1441

NAIR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS,
MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY and SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 137 of 1999

KATZ J
18 OCTOBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 137 of 1999

BETWEEN:

MANI SUBRAMANIAM NAIR
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
SECOND RESPONDENT

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KATZ J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 OCTOBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The applicant pay the first and third respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 137 of 1999

BETWEEN:

MANI SUBRAMANIAM NAIR
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
SECOND RESPONDENT

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	KATZ J
DATE:	18 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, I made an order on 3 October 2000 dismissing the application for review. By reason of a joint request which had been made by the parties at the time of the oral hearing of the application, I did not at the time of dismissing the application deal with the question of the costs of the application.

2. Following the delivery of my reasons, I received from the parties at my direction written submissions as to what I should do on the question of costs. Predictably, the applicant submitted that I should make no order as to costs, while the first and third respondents (the second respondent having submitted from the outset to any orders which I might make in the proceeding, except an order for costs against it) submitted that the usual rule should apply.

3. I have not been persuaded by the applicant’s submissions that the usual rule should not apply.

4. There is only one aspect of those submissions on which I consider it necessary to comment and that is the submission that (as I understand it) my decision has “clarifi[ed] … an important principle in the administration of the registration scheme”.

5. I drew attention in my substantive reasons in this matter to the fact that almost three years had passed by the time the applicant first sought review of the Secretary’s decision to deregister him as a migration agent. It was almost another year before the matter was concluded before me. Since, as I mentioned in my substantive reasons, the respondents took no delay point against the applicant, I dealt with the questions raised by the application. However, it is apparent that the registration scheme now in force is significantly different from that in force at the time of the Secretary’s deregistration decision. For instance, pars 302(1)(b) and (c) of the Act are no longer in existence, nor is subs 312(2) of the Act. Consideration of the effect of those provisions occupied much of my time in my substantive reasons. In those circumstances, it must be doubtful that the decision which I made will provide much assistance so far as the present day scheme is concerned.

6. I will order that the applicant pay the first and third respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

I certify that the preceding (6) six numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Katz.

Associate:

Dated:            18 October 2000

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ron Kessels Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S Gageler
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Written Submissions:	10 October 2000 and 12 October 2000
Date of Judgment:	18 October 2000