SZLIN v Minister for Immigration & Anor
[2008] FMCA 651
•19 May 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZLIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 651 |
| MIGRATION – Review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – consent orders – application granted – matter remitted to Tribunal for redetermination according to law. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Costs application – whether amount sought is reasonable in all the circumstances – amount sought reasonable having regard to the work done – application granted. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), Part 21 |
| Applicant: | SZLIN |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2900 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 19 May 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 19 May 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 May 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr L Karp |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Kah Lawyers |
| Appearance for the Respondents: | Ms A Crittenden |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application made on 20 September 2007 be granted.
A writ of certiorari issue quashing the decision of the Second Respondent signed on 22 August 2007 and handed down on 28 August 2007.
A writ of mandamus issue requiring the Second Respondent to redetermine the matter according to law.
The first respondent pay the applicant’s costs set in the amount of $6,000.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2900 of 2007
| SZLIN |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)
[I have before me an application for costs by the applicant in these proceedings. The parties have signed consent orders in this matter quashing the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law. I have before me Counsel’s fee document (applicant’s Exhibit 1 (“AE 1”)) and Kah Lawyers fee document (applicant’s Exhibit 2 (“AE 2”)) in support of the applicant’s application.
Ms Crittenden for the first respondent did not oppose the making of a costs order in this matter but opposed the amount sought of $6,000 as an amount too high in the circumstances of this case which did not go to a final hearing. I note, however, that Ms Crittenden did acknowledge that the amount sought by the applicant was an amount reduced to $6,000 from $9,500, an amount which included the costs associated with the transcript of the Tribunal hearing.]
In making a costs order I am guided by what is reasonable in all the circumstances, bearing in mind the work that has been done (and what was reasonably required to be done) to advance the applicant’s case. That is the criterion I am going to apply here. I take the view that I am not bound by the Schedule to the Rules of the Court, but that it is a guideline. In any event, I am guided by what is reasonable in all the circumstances. I note the work that has been done by the applicant’s legal representatives and there is nothing that can be said to have been done that did not need to be done. In my view, what the applicant’s legal representatives have done was necessary and the amount sought is a reasonable amount. I bear in mind what the Schedule says, but there is a substantial discount from $9,500 to $6,000 and, in my view, that is a reasonable amount.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Associate: A Douglas-Baker
Date: 23 May 2008
0
0
1