Papa, E. v Minister for Immigration

[1992] FCA 643

JlJDGlmJT No. ........ ........ . 3 J , . Q2

NOT SUITABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

YEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:  FLI PAPA

Applicant

AND :  MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

Respondent

C O W : Burchett J.
PLACE: Sydney

DATE : 3 September 1992

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BURCHETT J.:

This matter was listed for hearing today. It is, I understand, a matter by way of appeal from a review tribunal in which the questions before the court would be limited to questions of law. There has been a change of solicitors and counsel representing the applicant and that change has occurred only within the last few days. Counsel in fact was briefed yesterday, and notice was given to the Australian Government Solicitor only yesterday afternoon of the fact that

conduct of the applicant's case and, indeed, when I asked	questions about the nature of the appeal, was only able to
answer by reference to a copy of the notice of appeal produced by counsel for the respondent. In those circumstances, it does seem to me that the vital matter for consideration is whether the prejudice suffered by the respondent by the adjournment is so great as to outweigh the obvious and severe prejudice to an appellant who runs the risk of losing an appeal because of the inadequacy of its preparation.
It seems to me that I can, at any rate in large measure, counterbalance the respondent's prejudice by an appropriate order for costs, and that the remaining prejudice is not sufficient to justify me in refusing the applicant a proper opportunity to examine the matter in order to determine the best course and, if the appeal is to proceed, which I am informed is in doubt, to present it in the appropriate manner.
Accordingly, I accede to the application, but I do so on the footing that unless the matter does not ultimately proceed to a substantial hearing, the applicant should pay the costs
qualification on the obligation of the applicant to pay the thrown away by reason of the adjournment. I have put that
costs thrown away because, after all, if as a result of this adjournment the applicant is advised not to continue with the application, the adjournment will certainly not have caused significant additional costs, and may indeed have saved costs for the respondent, as one knows that whatever the estimate of a case, cases of this kind frequently do manage to last more than one day.
I have thought of framing an order appropriate to cover the contingencies, but it seems to me that it is much more practical and simple to give an indication of my attitude as to costs, as I have done, and to stand the matter over for a limited period to enable the applicant to decide her course, and then to make the one order that appears appropriate in the light of the information then available.
Accordingly, the matter is stood out of today's list and stood over for directions only, and for the making of the costs order appropriate in the light of these reasons and of the events as they will have unfolded by then, to 7 October at
9.30 am.
an adjour~lent	would be sought.

Counsel for the applicant is without much of the
information which would be necessary for any meaningful

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein

of his Honour Mr Justice Burchett.

Associate:  .pc ,.L F,-++ b-.

Date: 3 September 1992