SZNDS v Minister for Immigration
[2009] FMCA 528
•24 April 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZNDS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2009] FMCA 528 |
| MIGRATION – Application for costs – applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs. |
| Applicant: | SZNDS |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 83 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 24 April 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 24 April 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 24 April 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Appearing for the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Appearing for the Respondents: | Ms J Dinihan |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
Order (2) made on 24 March 2009 is set aside pursuant to r.16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $4,000.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 83 of 2009
| SZNDS |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)
On 24 March 2009 I handed down judgment in SZNDS v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2009] FMCA 220. This involved an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent Minister to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.
At the handing down of judgment the applicant appeared in person. There was no appearance by the first respondent. Nonetheless, I proceeded to hand down judgment and made an order dismissing the application. As there was no appearance (which, at the time, was unexplained) I made an order that there be no order as to costs.
Subsequently, the Minister made an application on 14 April 2009 that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.
This matter came on today. Ms J Dinihan appeared for the Minister. I also have before me her affidavit of 9 April 2009. There was no appearance by the applicant.
I am satisfied that the applicant has had proper and reasonable notice of the Minister’s application in this matter. Therefore, I am satisfied that the matter should proceed.
The Minister tendered a letter sent by express post to the applicant (I marked this as respondent’s exhibit 1 – “RE1”). The letter was sent to the address for service.
I also have before me respondent’s exhibit 2 (“RE2”) – being a letter from the first respondent’s solicitors to the applicant sent to the address for service.
Both letter put the applicant on notice of the proceedings today.
It is appropriate that a costs order be made in this matter. Had the Minister’s solicitors been able to have attended Court on time at the handing down of judgment, then the application for costs would have been made at that time.
The applicant has had the opportunity to come to Court and tell me why an alternative order should not be substituted. For whatever reason, he has chosen not to come, as is his right. As to the amount, and with reference to the work done up until the time of the handing down of the judgment, but not including the time of the handing down of judgment, $4,000 is, in my view, a reasonable amount and I will make the order in that amount.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Associate: C Darcy
Date: 3 June 2009
0