SZDIG v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 678

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDIG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 678

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of RRT decision affirming decision of a delegate of the Minister no to grant a protection visa.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Discontinuance – costs.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.483A
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Applicant: SZDIG

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1114 of 2004

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 27 April 2006

Date of Last Submission: 27 April 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 27 April 2006

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. That the title of the First Respondent has changed to Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs.

2. That the Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,400.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1114 of 2004

SZDIG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an application for costs.  It relates to a substantive application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which was scheduled to be heard on the 31^st May 2006.  The applicant however filed a notice of discontinuance on the 10^th April.  As the notice of discontinuance was filed more than 14 days before the hearing date, the applicant did not require leave to discontinue and the matter therefore has been discontinued with effect from the 10^th April.

2. What the solicitors for the respondent had done however is to seek costs as they are entitled to do.  And they have arranged to have the matter listed today for the purpose of the costs order.  The respondent's solicitors wrote to the applicant on the 19^th April advising him of this application and of the fact that it would be dealt with at 11.45 am today.  I note that they forwarded the document by express post and I also note that no reply seems to have been received.

3. The applicant has not attended the Court.  There seems to me to be no point in waiting and no message has been received indicating that he will be attending.  We do of course have an interpreter available in case the applicant did attend but it appears that her services will not be needed.

4. I propose to make a costs order as provided by the rules.  I note that the amount sought is $2,400.00.  In view of the history of the matter and degree of preparation which has been occasioned, it is my view that the sum of $2,400.00 is a reasonable figure in the circumstances.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  S.Polley

Date:  4 May 2006