SZAQH v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

[2008] FMCA 347

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAQH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.2) [2008] FMCA 347

MIGRATION – Costs – larger amount than normally provided.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: SZAQH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1139 of 2007

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 10 March 2008

Date of Last Submission: 10 March 2008

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 10 March 2008

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: In Person

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondents costs fixed in the sum of $15,000.00 and I allow 12 months to pay.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1139 of 2007

SZAQH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The amount of costs which is sought is $15,200, made up of legal work performed of $11,570, disbursements at $8774.  That included a considerable amount of photocopying and, more particularly, barrister's fees.  The costs which are estimated I presume include the costs which I reserved on 15 August 2007 when the matter went over.

2. This is an unusual case.  It certainly involved the consideration of a considerably greater amount of work and amount of documentation than the average matter.  It is certainly a matter where it was appropriate to brief counsel and indeed counsel of some seniority.  The amended application which was considered was quite substantial, containing 29 grounds of review, and it was necessary for the decision to be reserved over a significant period of time in order that the applicant's case could be considered.

3. I am certainly persuaded that the amount of $15,200 which is sought is not inappropriate and indeed I propose to make an order perhaps rounding the figure down, that I will make an order that the applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $15,000.  At the same time I take account of the fact that the applicant does not presently have the funds and where a person is not in employment a large legal costs bill represents a significant financial imposition.  I do not know what the applicant's future will be.  He may or may not appeal.  That is a matter for him.  He may obtain employment.  I am not aware of that.  However, my view is that it would be appropriate in making an order for costs that I should allow 12 months to pay.  It is a longer period of time than I would normally allow but it is a greater amount of costs than I would normally see. 

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

Associate:  A. Coutman

Date:  18 March 2008