SZIDF v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 1158
•28 June 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZIDF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 1158 |
| MIGRATION – Application for review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – Tribunal affirmed decision not to grant protection visa – applicant sought to withdraw application – leave to discontinue granted – application dismissed. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r1.06, 13.01 |
| Applicant: | SZIDF |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 164 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 28 June 2007 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 28 June 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 28 June 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | Appeared in person |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr D. Godwin |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | DLA Phillips Fox |
ORDERS
The title of the First Respondent is changed to Minister for Immigration & Citizenship.
I grant leave for the Applicant to discontinue his application.
Pursuant to Rule 1.06 I dispense with the provisions of Rule 13.01.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,000.00.
I allow (4) four months to pay.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 164 of 2006
| SZIDF |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
There is an application from the Applicant to withdraw his application. That is in effect an application to discontinue. Notwithstanding the fact that the application has been made orally rather than in writing, I propose to consider the application and I grant leave to the Applicant to discontinue effectively immediately.
Under the provisions of r.13.01 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules2001, I dispense with compliance.
There is an application for costs on behalf of the First Respondent, the Minister. The Applicant is aware of the costs penalty involved and asked the Court if some sort of a discount could be considered.
The application for costs by Mr Godwin of Counsel is in the sum of $4,000.00, which I understand to be inclusive of Counsel’s fees. In my view, the figure that has been put to me already represents a significant discount on the amount that the Court would normally award if the matter had gone to a full hearing on its merits today. For that reason, I do not propose to reduce that sum any further.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: S.Polley
Date: 16 July 2007
0
0
1