SZNWW v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.2)

[2009] FMCA 1282

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZNWW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.2) [2009] FMCA 1282

MIGRATION – Costs – application for review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – where applicant was in immigration detention – where First Respondent overlooked making arrangements to bring the Applicant to Court.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, Schedule 1, Part 2

Applicant: SZNWW

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 2202 of 2009

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 14 December 2009

Date of last submission: 14 December 2009

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 14 December 2009

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: Appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Nguyen

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. (1)    The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2202 of 2009

SZNWW

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There is an application for costs on behalf of the First Respondent Minister.  The Applicant has been unsuccessful in his claim and it is appropriate that a costs order be made. Costs sought are the scale amount of $5,865.00. I note that Mr Reynolds of counsel appeared. In normal circumstances I would in fact make such an order.

2. There have been difficulties in this matter, brought about by the fact that the Applicant was in immigration detention.

3. The decision was meant to have been handed down at 10:15am this morning. It could not have been, because the Applicant was not brought to Court, due to an oversight. The oversight, I understand, occurred in the office of the Minister’s lawyers and is not directly attributable to any fault on behalf of the Minister or the Minister’s Department. 

4. I have expressed the Court’s displeasure at that, because that is something that should not happen again.  The Applicant was brought to Court later today, although not at the time that was foreshadowed.  However, as soon as it became clear that the Applicant had been brought to Court, with an escort, I made arrangements to come back into Court.

5. On the question of costs, as I said, the amount of $5,865.00 is sought.  I would normally allow that figure. In the circumstances, however, I think it is appropriate that I make some reduction, nothing the waste of the Court’s time that has occurred. 

6. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  V. Lee

Date:  18 December 2009