FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| YONG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2006] FMCA 164 |
| PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Migration– costs – orders in chambers. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules, rr.4.02, 4.05, 13.01 13.02, Pt 44, sch 1 pt 2, 4415(2) |
| Applicant: | YONG DARLIZA MD IDRUS |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | MLG 592 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Riethmuller FM |
| Hearing Date: | N/A |
| Last Submission: | 16 November 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 13 April 2006 |
ORDERS
The court makes no order.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 592 of 2005
| YONG DARLIZA MD IDRUS |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter came before me in chambers for a decision on the papers. The applicant in this matter sought judicial review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal dated 16 May 2005. On 17 October 2005 after directions made by Registrar Mussett on 22 June 2005 the applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance.
On 7 November 2005 the respondent solicitor filed an affidavit sworn on 4 November 2005 requesting an order for costs setting out that the minister’s solicitor and client cost would be approximately $4,170.00 and party costs were under $3,130.00.
There were written submissions in respect of costs in the following terms:
1.This is an application that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $3,139.00. The respondent relies on the affidavit filed in support of this application.
2.The respondent is seeking a reduced amount of $3,130.00 in full and final satisfaction of the respondent’s costs in this matter. This includes disbursements incurred in the amount of $438.73; most of which are photocopying fees for preparation of the Court Book. As at 27 October 2005, the respondent’s solicitor/client costs and disbursements total approximately $4,170.00 inclusive of GST.
3.The professional fees include work undertaken on behalf of the respondent, including but not limited to: perusing application dated 20 May 2005 for review of the MRT decision dated 16 May 2005; obtaining instructions to act; drawing, engrossing, sealing and service of appearance; perusing DIMIA and MRT files; instruction solicitor’s attendance at the directions hearing before Registrar Mussett on 22 June 2005 wherein it was ordered that the substantive hearing be listed for final hearing on 24 January 2006; perusing sealed orders of Registrar Mussett dated 22 June 2005; perusing notice of listing from Court; preparing, filing and serving court book on 19 July 2005; preparation of detailed advise to client; preparation of brief to counsel; preparing, filing and serving notice of change of address for service; perusing all correspondence from Legal Aid and Court; perusing notice of discontinuance dated 17 October 2005; communications with client including seeking instructions and all other attendances in finalising this matter.
4.In light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that an order should be made that the applicant pay the respondents costs fixed in the amount of $3,130.00.
There is nothing before…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Yong v Minister for Immigration and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] FMCA 164
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Migration Act and considered the principles of administrative law that guide the exercise of discretionary powers by ministers. The respondent argued that the Minister failed to consider all relevant material and did not adequately explain the basis of the decision. The court assessed the Minister's decision against these principles, considering whether the decision was irrational or based on an incorrect application of the law. The court found that the Minister's assessment of the respondent's English language proficiency was reasonable and that the decision to cancel the visa was made in accordance with the law. The court concluded that the Minister's decision was lawful and therefore dismissed the application for judicial review.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The court makes no order.
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.