SZNDS v Minister for Immigration

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

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021. The application for an internal review of the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration is dismissed. The decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration dated 17 November 2020 is affirmed. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings. The court heard an appeal by SZNDS against a decision of the Minister for Immigration. The applicant, a non-citizen, sought to overturn a decision to refuse a visa application. The refusal was based on grounds of health and character, as well as concerns about the risk of the applicant engaging in criminal conduct if granted a visa. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and that the decision-maker had failed to properly consider relevant evidence and had misapplied the relevant statutory provisions.

The court considered several key issues. Firstly, whether the decision was based on an error of law. Secondly, whether the decision was unreasonable in the sense of being irrational or unjust. Thirdly, whether the decision-maker had failed to consider relevant material or had given undue weight to irrelevant material. The court found that the decision was based on a correct application of the law and that there was no error of law. The court also found that the decision was not unreasonable, as it was supported by material and the decision-maker had properly exercised their discretion. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the decision-maker had failed to consider relevant material, finding that all relevant material had been considered. The court also found that the decision-maker had not given undue weight to irrelevant material. The court held that the decision was lawful, rational, and just, and accordingly dismissed the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established