SZBSG v Minister for Immigration

[2004] FMCA 991

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBSG & ANOR  v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 991

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse a protection visa to the Applicants – Applicants citizens of Fiji – where Applicants did not appear at the final hearing – where Applicants’ former solicitors filed a notice of discontinuance before the hearing.

COSTS – Circumstances justifying order – where Respondent seeks an order for costs despite the fact that the notice of discontinuance was filed a month before the hearing date – necessary to examine the work completed before the notice of discontinuance was filed.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.475A
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 Part 13

First Applicant: SZBSG

Second Applicant: SZBSH

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SYG 2235 of 2003

Delivered on: 26 November 2004

Delivered at: Sydney South

Hearing date: 26 November 2004

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicants: No appearance by either

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The Application is discontinued.

2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs in the sum of $2,300.00.

3. Transcript of reasons for decision required.

4. The Application is removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2235 of 2004

SZBSG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by two Applicants known as SZBSG and SZBSH for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of the delegate to refuse a protection visa to the Applicants. 

2. The Applicants have since left Australia and their solicitors; Messrs Ward Maxwell & Company filed a notice of discontinuance.  That notice of discontinuance was originally filed under cover of a letter dated 27 October 2004.

3. I am satisfied that the matter should be regarded as discontinued.  Ms Knight for the Respondent appears today to seek costs.  The rules provide that a party may seek costs in the circumstances and in my view a costs order is appropriate and envisaged by the rules. 

4. Ms Knight, for the Respondent, seeks the sum of $2300. 

5. I have had the opportunity of inspecting the file.  I note the amount of work that has been done and indeed a Court Book, which was quite lengthy, has already been prepared.  Quite clearly the early notice of discontinuance has meant that some preparation for the case need not be done which has therefore reduced the costs.  Nevertheless, I am of the belief that the sum of $2300 is well within the range of costs that the Court would award in such a matter and it is well within the range of costs envisaged by the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

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

Associate:  V Lee

Date:  16 December 2004