SZLSZ v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)
[2008] FMCA 580
•1 April 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZLSZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.2) | [2008] FMCA 580 |
| MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – costs application – costs significantly in excess of schedule in Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 |
| Applicant: | SZLSZ |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 3789 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Emmett FM |
| Hearing date: | 1 April 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 1 April 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 1 April 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| There was no appearance by the Applicant |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Ms E. Baggett, DLA Phillips Fox |
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3789 of 2007
| SZLSZ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The first respondent seeks costs to be fixed in an amount of $11,250, which is clearly in excess of the sum of $5000 in the costs schedule in the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
However, this proceeding was somewhat unusual in the time that was involved in its preparation.
The matter was adjourned shortly after it commenced on the application of the applicant in order to allow the applicant to meet with a nominated panel adviser. That panel adviser informed the Court and the first respondent only the night before the hearing that she had not been able to comply with or meet the Court's timetable in meeting with the applicant and giving advice in accordance with the Legal Panel Advice Scheme. However, the applicant still wished to have the opportunity to meet with the adviser.
When the hearing resumed, it proceeded on the basis of an amended application, which both the Court and counsel for the first respondent found difficult to understand and again which is referred to in the reasons for my decision.
I am prepared to accept that counsel would need to have spent some significant time in seeking to understand and distil the grounds to be relied on by the applicant as disclosed in the amended application, in order to make submissions in response.
As is apparent from the reasons for my decision, whilst ultimately the matter did not involve any particular complexity, as stated above, I am satisfied that a significant amount of time was needed to identify with any confidence the grounds upon which the applicant was actually relying.
The consequence of the amended application, drafted in the form that it was, was that the costs spent by the first respondent in preparation for the first hearing were to some significant extent thrown away. The work originally done by the first respondent was of no use in making submissions in response to the amended application.
In the circumstances, costs for the work done and the time involved in preparation for the first hearing on behalf of the first respondent ought to be paid by the applicant.
For that reason, in my view, it is appropriate that the order sought by the first respondent be made and I propose to order that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $11,250.
In making that order I have had regard to the affidavit of Emily Baggett, affirmed 1 April 2008, in which Ms Baggett gives a breakdown of the solicitor-client costs involved and attaches a copy of counsel's fees which also has a breakdown of the work involved. Accordingly, I am able to be satisfied of the amounts referred to and that the amount ultimately sought by the first respondent is approximately 75 per cent of the total costs. I am informed by Ms Baggett that the total costs and disbursements involved in the matter have been approximately $15,000 and that the sum of $11,250 represents 75 per cent.
For the reasons I have given above, I am satisfied that the amount sought by the first respondent is appropriate. I order that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $11,250.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM
Deputy Associate: E. Maconachie
Date: 6 May 2008
0
0
1