FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rosson v Tesoriero (No 2) [2011] FCA 620
Citation: Rosson v Tesoriero (No 2) [2011] FCA 620 Parties: DARIN JAMES ROSSON v TONY TESORIERO, DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA File number(s): NSD 183 of 2011 Judge: YATES J Date of judgment: 6 June 2011 Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 16(1)(d)
Federal Court of Australia Regulations 2004 (Cth) reg 14(2)
Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW) s 46Cases cited: Rosson v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 194
Rosson v Tesoriero [2011] FCA 449Date of hearing: 6 May 2011 Date of last submissions: 24 May 2011 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 8 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms R Graycar Solicitor for the Applicant: Legal Aid NSW Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr A Markus of Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 183 of 2011
BETWEEN: DARIN JAMES ROSSON
ApplicantAND: TONY TESORIERO, DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
JUDGE:
YATES J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 JUNE 2011
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to reg 14(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Regulations 2004 (Cth), the applicant’s application in proceeding NSD 1755 of 2010 be permitted to be filed without the prior payment of the relevant fee, this order to take effect nunc pro tunc.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 183 of 2011
BETWEEN: DARIN JAMES ROSSON
ApplicantAND: TONY TESORIERO, DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
JUDGE:
YATES J
DATE:
6 JUNE 2011
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 6 May 2011 I made orders setting aside the decision of the respondent to refuse to accept the applicant’s application under s 476A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the s 476A application) without the relevant (in this case, reduced) filing fee being paid: see Rosson v Tesoriero [2011] FCA 449.
The application for an order of review sought not only an order setting aside the challenged decision, but also an order remitting the matter for reconsideration. At the time of publishing my reasons for judgment, I raised with the parties the utility of remitting the matter for reconsideration. In that regard I noted that, if there remained any utility in reconsidering the matter, reg 14(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Regulations 2004 (Cth) (the Federal Court Regulations) empowered a Judge of the Court to exercise the discretion in an appropriate case. The material on which the applicant proposed to rely in any reconsideration of his request that the discretion under reg 14(2) be exercised in his favour in respect of the filing of the s 476A application (the applicant’s request) was already…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Rosson v Tesoriero (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] FCA 620
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant satisfied the conditions set out in the regulation to be excused from paying the filing fee before proceeding with their application. This involved an interpretation of the regulation and an assessment of the applicant’s circumstances to determine if they met the necessary criteria for an exemption. The court needed to weigh the applicant's financial situation and the potential impact of the fee requirement on their ability to pursue their legal remedy.
The court considered the statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of the applicant. It found that the applicant’s situation warranted an exemption from the fee requirement. The court reasoned that the applicant's inability to pay the fee upfront would unduly hinder their ability to access justice, aligning with the objectives of the regulation to ensure equitable access to the court system. Consequently, the court granted the applicant’s request, permitting their application to proceed without the prior payment of the fee, with the order to take effect retroactively.
The final orders of the court were that the applicant’s application could proceed without the prior payment of the relevant fee, and this order was to be effective from the time of the original filing of the application. This decision ensured that the applicant could continue with their legal proceedings without the financial barrier posed by the filing fee.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to reg 14(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Regulations 2004 (Cth), the applicant’s application in proceeding NSD 1755 of 2010 be permitted to be filed without the prior payment of the relevant fee, this order to take effect nunc pro tunc.
Note:
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.