S377 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 127

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S377 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 127

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of the RRT affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the Applicant a protection visa – Applicant a citizen of Lebanon.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s.475A

SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24

Applicant: APPLICANT S377 of 2003

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File No: SYG 2311 of 2005

Delivered on: 31 January 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 31 January 2006

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Griffin

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $1,700.00.

2. I NOTE that the Application was discontinued on 29 December 2005.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2311 of 2005

APPLICANT S377 OF 2003

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings were commenced in the High Court of Australia, remitted to the Federal Court and by order of Emmett J on 5^th August 2005 transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court. A Registrar of this Court listed the proceedings for hearing on 18^th January 2006.

2. On 29^th December 2005 the Applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance. That Notice had the effect of discontinuing the proceedings as at that date under the provisions of Rule 13.01. The application was filed more than 14 days before the day fixed for Final Hearing. As such it did not need the leave of the Court or a Registrar to be filed. Having been filed in time, the Notice of Discontinuance discontinued the proceeding as of the date of filing, namely 29^th December 2005.

3. By letter dated 9^th January 2006 the lawyers for the Respondent Minister sought an order for costs, which is permitted by Rule 13.02 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. The Applicant was sent a copy of this application that same day and as a decision was made that the application for costs should be heard in open court on 11^th January 2006, the Minister's lawyers forwarded a letter to the Applicant advising him of the time, date and place and before whom the application would be heard. These matters are set out in the affidavit of Brooke Marie Griffin, dated 31^st January 2006 and filed in Court this day. 

4. To my mind the Respondent has acted correctly in advising the Applicant of the costs order sought and how the amount of costs, estimated at $1,700.00, has been calculated.  There is a description of the work done in the High Court of Australia and in this Court and I accept that the proceedings in the Federal Court were not subject to any particular Court event that involved any specific work annexed to proceedings in that Court.

5. In my view the sum of $1,700.00 is a moderate figure and well within the scale provided in sch1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.  I have no hesitation in finding that the amount sought is an appropriate amount, just as I have previously had no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that a costs order was appropriate in the circumstances.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  Virginia Lee

Date:  3 February 2006