FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 3) [2012] FCA 1021
Citation: Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 3) [2012] FCA 1021 Appeal from: Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2011] FMCA 112 Parties: CHANDRAKANT BHAGABHAI PATEL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number: QUD 67 of 2011 Judge: COLLIER J Date of judgment: 17 September 2012 Cases cited: Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) ATPR 40-748 cited
Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 958 cited
Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2012] FCA 1020 citedDate of hearing: 4 September 2012 Date of last submissions: 17 September 2012 Place: Brisbane Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 5 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr L Boccabella Solicitor for the Appellant: AJ Torbey & Associates Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Ms GE O'Connor of Clayton Utz
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 67 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: CHANDRAKANT BHAGABHAI PATEL
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentMIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
COLLIER J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 SEPTEMBER 2012
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the costs of the interlocutory application filed 4 November 2011, on a standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 67 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: CHANDRAKANT BHAGABHAI PATEL
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentMIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
COLLIER J
DATE:
17 SEPTEMBER 2012
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 4 September 2012 I delivered judgment in the substantive proceeding (Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 958). In that judgment I dismissed the appeal commenced by the appellant. At the time I ordered the parties to file submissions in respect of costs within seven days.
Submissions were filed on behalf of the Minister on 10 September 2012. In those submissions the Minister sought costs, both in respect of the substantive appeal and in respect of an interlocutory application filed by the appellant on 4 November 2012 which was also dismissed (Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2012] FCA 1020).
This afternoon, submissions were filed on behalf of the appellant in relation to costs incurred in relation to the substantive appeal. In summary, the appellant contends that Mr Patel was justified in bringing the appeal in circumstances where there was no dispute that the person who signed the relevant certificate had no authority to do so. No submissions were made by the appellant in response to the Minister’s submissions concerning costs incurred in respect of the interlocutory application.
The award of costs is at the discretion of the Court. In the absence of special circumstances justifying some other order, costs follow the event: Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) ATPR 40-748 at 48,236 per Toohey J.
Both the appeal and the interlocutory application were dismissed. No circumstances warranting a departure from the usual rule have been demonstrated by the submissions of the appellant. In my view the appellant ought to be directed to pay the costs of the Minister in relation to both the appeal and the interlocutory application.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Collier. Associate:
Dated: 17 September 2012
- AGLC
- Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 3) [2012] FCA 1021
- Case
- [2012] FCA 1021
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the decision-maker erred in law by failing to consider the appellant's fear of persecution and whether the decision was otherwise flawed. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of administrative law that govern the making of such decisions. It found that the decision-maker had indeed considered the appellant's fear of persecution but concluded that the fear was not well-founded. The court further held that the decision was not tainted by jurisdictional error and that the appellant's arguments did not demonstrate any procedural unfairness or failure to consider relevant material.
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the costs of the interlocutory application filed on 4 November 2011, on a standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed. This decision was made under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the costs of the interlocutory application filed 4 November 2011, on a standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.