Tuaoi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 317

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tuaoi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs  [2000] FCA 317

SISIFO TUAOI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Q 102 of 1999

KIEFEL J
BRISBANE
25 FEBRUARY 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q102 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	SISIFO TUAOI Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q102 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	SISIFO TUAOI Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE:	25 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:	BRISBANE

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (COSTS)

1. One approach to the question of costs might have regard to the making of the deportation order which set in train the immigration detention and the need for this and other applications.  However, I don’t think it can be said that the deportation order was without some basis or wholly unreasonable, particularly when one has regard to the reasons given for the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had regard to the further evidence which was tendered before it.

2. The refusal by the delegate to direct release from immigration detention, which was the subject of an application in December 1998, also cannot be relied upon as influencing the costs on this application, given the substance of the reasons later given for that decision against the background of the deportation order. 

3. Once you proceed beyond those points I think it must be accepted that the question of costs falls to be determined only by having regard to whether or not there were proper grounds for this application.  The applicant failed at an interlocutory level, and that is the only basis upon which I can assess them now.  It did not proceed beyond that point.

1. The normal order is that the successful party have their costs on the proceedings.  The application brought to this Court for release involved a risk of an adverse order for costs if it was found not to be well based.  That was the conclusion I reached.  It inevitably follows, in my view, that the applicant should pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, and I order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel.

Associate:

Dated:             25 February 2000

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M McKew
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Poteri Woods
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	25 February 2000
Date of Judgment:	25 February 2000