SZQTG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)

Case [2012] FCA 895

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZQTG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2012] FCA 895

Citation: SZQTG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2012] FCA 895
Related to: SZQTG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 891
Parties: SZQTG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number: NSD 712 of 2012
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 21 August 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Determination of fixed costs – whether to grant
Date of hearing: 21 August 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 3
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent: A Crittenden of Clayton Utz
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 712 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

SZQTG
Appellant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 AUGUST 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The costs which the first respondent may recover from the applicant be in the sum of $2,431. 

2.Leave be granted to the first respondent to file in Court the affidavit of Ms Bulut sworn 20 August 2012.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 712 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

SZQTG
Appellant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE:

21 AUGUST 2012

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This matter was heard by me on 14 August.  I made the following orders:

    (1)that the appeal be dismissed;

    (2)the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs.

  2. The first respondent now applies for an order that there be a determination of fixed costs.  The Minister relies upon an affidavit of a Ms Bulut, sworn on 20 August 2012.  That affidavit suggests – and I accept – that the actual costs incurred by the Minister to date in this matter are in the vicinity of $3,740.50.  Ms Bulut believes that it is likely that, upon taxation, the Minister might expect to recover 65 per cent in respect of professional costs and 100 per cent in respect of disbursements.  On that basis she believes that a figure in the vicinity of $2,431 is likely to be recovered upon taxation.

  3. Given the nature of the proceedings it seems to me to be appropriate to make the fixed costs order which is sought, and I order that the costs which the first respondent may recover from the applicant, pursuant to the costs order made a few moments ago, be in the sum of $2,431.  I grant leave to the first respondent to file in Court the affidavit of Ms Bulut.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram.

Associate:

Dated:        21 August 2012

Details
AGLC
SZQTG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2012] FCA 895
Case
[2012] FCA 895
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, SZQTG, an individual, contested the decisions of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship regarding their immigration status. The applicant sought judicial review of the minister's refusal to grant them a visa and to stay in Australia. The minister, in response, applied for fixed costs under the Federal Court Rules 2011, contending that the application for review was frivolous and should not have been brought. The court was tasked with determining whether to grant the minister's application for costs and, if so, the appropriate amount.

The central legal issue was whether the application for judicial review was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, justifying the imposition of fixed costs. The court examined the merits of the applicant's case, the conduct of the parties, and the principles governing the imposition of costs in judicial review proceedings. The court needed to balance the applicant's right to seek judicial review against the need to protect the judicial process from abuse.

The court found that the application was not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. However, it determined that the application was largely without merit and that the applicant's conduct in pursuing the matter was unreasonable. Consequently, the court awarded the minister fixed costs of $2,431, reflecting the limited success of the minister's application and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court also granted leave for the minister to file an additional affidavit to support their costs application.

The court's orders included the imposition of costs on the applicant in the amount of $2,431 and the granting of leave to the minister to file an affidavit in support of their costs application. These orders were made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in judicial review proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The costs which the first respondent may recover from the applicant be in the sum of $2,431.

2. Leave be granted to the first respondent to file in Court the affidavit of Ms Bulut sworn 20 August 2012.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.