SZEKQ v Minister for Immigration (No 2)

[2006] FMCA 994

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEKQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No 2) [2006] FMCA 994

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – personal costs order against solicitor – costs of the hearing – application to vary orders – judgment under appeal – application dismissed.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules, r.16.05

Applicant: SZEKQ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2853 of 2004

Judgment of: Mowbray FM

Hearing date: Decided on written submissions

Date of Last Submission: 16 June 2006

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 14 July 2006

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Patel

Solicitors for the first Respondent: Sparke Helmore

Advocate for Mr Goldsmith: Mr B Goldsmith

ORDERS

1. The application filed by Mr Goldsmith on 22 March 2006 be dismissed.

2. Mr Goldsmith pay the costs of the applicant and first respondent as agreed or taxed for this application.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
CANBERRA

SYG 2853 of 2004

SZEKQ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Following a lengthy hearing I ordered Mr Goldsmith to pay the first respondent, the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, $2,500 for costs thrown away due to an adjournment of the principal proceedings on 17 June 2005. 

2. Mr Goldsmith was also ordered to pay the costs of the Minister and the applicant from the principal proceedings, SZEKQ, for the costs hearing.  Mr Goldsmith now seeks to have this costs order varied.

3. I refer in these reasons to the applicant in the principal proceedings as SZEKQ, to the Minister (the first respondent in the principal proceedings) as the respondent, and to Mr Goldsmith (the applicant in these proceedings) by his name.  

Background

1. The hearing on the Minister’s costs application against Mr Goldsmith extended over two and a half days – 4 August 2005, 20 September 2005 and 14 March 2006.  After submissions concluded on 14 March 2006 I indicated that I would deliver an ex tempore judgment on

   
   

   15 March 2006.  There had been no submissions on the costs of this hearing to this point.

2. After I delivered judgment on 15 March 2006 Ms Rayment, for the Minister, and SZEKQ both sought costs orders against Mr Goldsmith for the costs hearing.  I then gave Mr Goldsmith an opportunity to put submissions to me.  He did not address me at any length.   He did not oppose the Minister’s application for costs.  He said that the most appropriate course would be to have those costs taxed.  He objected to paying SZEKQ’s costs on the basis that SZEKQ “should not properly have been involved in the hearing of this application.” 

3. I consequently made the orders which Mr Goldsmith now wants varied.

4. The following day Mr Goldsmith wrote to me seeking leave to make submissions on costs and asking me to vary the orders.  He acknowledged that he “should have sought to address [me] yesterday on the question of costs”.  The Minister…