SZGPH v Minister for Immigration
[2006] FMCA 1109
•7 August 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZGPH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2006] FMCA 1109 |
| COSTS – Award of costs following discontinuance. |
| Applicant: | SZGPH |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG1666 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
| Hearing date: | Decided on written submissions |
| Date of Last Submission: | 31 July 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 7 August 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
The Applicant appeared in person
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms T Quinn Phillips Fox |
ORDERS
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $2,500.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG1666 of 2005
| SZGPH |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant in this matter discontinued the application by notice of discontinuance filed on 13 June 2006. In consequence, the Minister applied for an order for costs. In submissions filed on 11 July 2006 the Minister sought an order fixed in the sum of $2,500.
In a letter to my associate dated 31 July 2006 the applicant referred to his personal circumstances, in particular his inability to work because of a no work condition attaching to his current visa. He sought a reduction in the amount of costs and the opportunity to make payments monthly.
The amount sought by the Minister is an appropriate party/party assessment. The Minister was represented at a directions hearing on 7 July 2005 and a court book of 296 pages was prepared and filed on 26 July 2005. The Minister was required to consider both the original judicial review application and an amended application filed on 25 November 2005. Costs have also been incurred in seeking a costs order.
The asserted inability of the applicant to pay whatever costs may be awarded is not a reason to refrain from making a costs order. Nevertheless, I will not order that costs be paid within any particular time. The timing of any payment is properly a matter for discussion between the parties.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM
Associate:
Date: 7 August 2006
0
0
0