Samuel v Minister for Immigration (No.2)

[2004] FMCA 877

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAMUEL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION (No.2) [2004] FMCA 877

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – migration.

Oschlack v Richmond River Council (1998) HCA 11

Applicant: COLIN AMBROSE SAMUEL

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: MLG710 of 2003

Delivered on: 26 November 2004

Delivered at: Melbourne

Date of Last Submissions: 27 October 2004

Judgment of: McInnis FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr T Hurley

Solicitors for the Applicant: Armstrong Ross

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr W Mosley

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $7,700.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 710 of 2003

AMBROSE COLIN SAMUEL

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter I delivered a decision on 19 October 2004 whereby

   
   

   I dismissed the application and indicated that I would hear the parties in relation to the issue of costs.

2. The Respondent by submissions in writing dated 27 October 2004 seeks costs fixed in the sum of $7,700.00 based upon an attached schedule of costs.  The Respondent otherwise asserts that costs should follow the event though recognising that the Court has an unfettered discretion as to whether to make an order for costs though that discretion must be exercised judicially in accordance with established principles and factors directly connected with litigation.  I accept that in principle is the correct statement of the law (see Oschlack v Richmond River Council (1998) HCA 11). It is also the case that costs usually follow the event. It is otherwise submitted by the Respondent that it has properly responded to the Applicant’s application for judicial review by progressing the matter towards hearing.

3. In the absence of any submissions to the contrary I agree with the Respondents submissions and in the exercise of the Court’s discretion

   
   

   I am satisfied that costs should follow the event in this instance and I am satisfied that a fair and reasonable amount for costs is the sum of $7,700 as claimed by the Respondent.  Accordingly the further order of the court will be that the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $7,700.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of McInnis FM

Associate: 

Date:  26 November 2004