SZISM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)

Case •

[2007] FCAFC 106

•

20 July 2007

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZISM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2007] FCAFC 106

SZISM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1772 OF 2006

BLACK CJ, WEINBERG AND ALLSOP JJ
20 JULY 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1772 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZISM
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, WEINBERG AND ALLSOP JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JULY 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The first respondent pay 50% of the appellant’s costs of the application to set aside the orders of the Court made on 16 February 2007 and entered on 27 February 2007.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1772 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZISM
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, WEINBERG AND ALLSOP JJ

DATE:

20 JULY 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

  1. The appellant and the first respondent have filed submissions on costs, as provided for by [32] of our reasons dated 3 May 2007.

  2. The appellant seeks an order that the first respondent pay 80% of the appellant’s costs of the application to set aside the orders of the Court pronounced by Nicholson J.  This order is sought because the appellant won the substantive legal issue which was before the Court.  Eighty percent is a conservative assessment of the time and cost involved in the primary legal issue set against all the issues in the application.  Counsel for the appellant emphasised the importance of the substantive question and called in aid the recent decision of the High Court in Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] HCA 14 and in particular [77] and [78] thereof.

  3. The first respondent accepted that an order other than one in his favour, reflecting his success on the motion, was appropriate.  The first respondent submitted that the appropriate course be that there be no order as to costs.  This would, it was submitted, reflect a mutuality or equality of entitlement to costs.

  4. A powerful consideration put forward by the first respondent is that the appellant brought the motion in the face of the indication given by Nicholson J as to prospects.  The appellant’s argument on the error in the judgment at first instance was based substantially on SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 231 ALR 592 and was, for the reasons we gave, lacking foundation.

  5. The argument as to power was a very important one, both for the parties and for the administration of justice generally, and particularly in migration cases.  The Court was assisted by careful and lucid arguments on both sides.  Considerable preparation was required for that argument.

  6. In all the circumstances we think that there should be an order reflecting the success of the appellant upon the important issue of the construction of s 25 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) but that order should also recognise that the appellant failed, because there was no foundation for any argument of error in the primary judgment.

  7. Balancing these considerations, in particular the predominance of the question of construction in terms of preparation and presentation of the appeal, and seeking to avoid any debate about identification of costs in relation to this issue on taxation, we consider that the appropriate order is that the first respondent pay 50% of the appellant’s costs of the application to set aside the orders of the Court made on 16 February 2007 and entered on 27 February 2007.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Black CJ, Weinberg and Allsop JJ.

Associate:
Dated:        20 July 2007

Counsel for the Appellant:  Dr K Stern appeared pursuant to a request under Order 80.
Counsel for the First Respondent:  Dr M Allars
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 19 April 2007
Date of Final Submissions: 17 May 2007
Date of Judgment: 20 July 2007
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document