VMAM v Minister for Immigration (No.2)

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VMAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION (No.2) [2003] FMCA 574

MIGRATION – Submission re costs – application dismissed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs.

Applicant: VMAM

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: MZ 227 of 2003

Delivered on: 28 November 2003

Delivered at: Melbourne

Hearing Date: 28 November 2003

Judgment of: McInnis FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms De Leo

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. That the application filed 23 January 2003 be dismissed.

2. That the applicant shall pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $5,940.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MZ 227 of 2003

VMAM

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. In this matter I made orders on 14 November 2003 dismissing the application and fixed costs in the sum of $5700.  I granted liberty to the applicant to apply in relation to the issue of costs by 4 pm on or before 25 November 2003. 

2. The court file reveals that prior to 25 November 2003 there was a telephone conversation or telephone call made to the court by the applicant.  The applicant was advised that the costs issue would be dealt with this day and he advised he may seek some legal advice.  There is a further file note which states, “A voice mail message was left at 11.30 last night advising that the applicant had made an appointment to see a lawyer and a lawyer advised him if he wins the case he will give costs but if he loses he will get costs again.  He will not be able to attend on Friday, 28 November 2003.” 

1. On 28 November 2003, at 8.50 am a file note says:

   “He has not been able to get advice from lawyer.  He is unable to attend court today.” It provides a phone number. 

2. I then have a printout of an email which was forwarded to my deputy associate.  It would appear to follow from a conversation about which

   
   

   I have no file note but alleges there was a conversation between my Deputy Associate and a person called ‘Lisa’.  The identity of Lisa is not referred to in the note.  This email provides:

   “Further to our telephone conversation of earlier today (24 November 2003 4.20 pm)  I would like to submit for consideration a reduction to the fixed sum payable to the Respondent that was applied by McInnis FM.  The orders show that the amount payable is $5700.00.

   Based upon the decision of:

   NAGY v Minister for Immigration [2002] FMCA 189 (20 August 2002) where Driver FM, stated that ‘I would ordinarily make a costs order between $4,000 to $5,000’ I was expecting costs in/around these numbers.

   I also reviewed another order,

   VMAC v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 508 (14 November 2003] where the costs associated were $4.650.

   With this in mind I would like to apply to have the…