Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases

MIGRATION - Where applicant accepts the findings of the Tribunal - costs order remitted appropriately.

NAAJ v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 94 (12 March 2003)

NAAJ v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 94 (12 March 2003)
Last Updated: 28 March 2003

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAAJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
[2003] FMCA 94



MIGRATION - Where applicant accepts the findings of the Tribunal - costs order remitted appropriately.



Applicant:
NAAJ



Respondent:


MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS



File No:


SZ 1205 of 2002



Delivered on:


12 March 2003



Delivered at:


Sydney



Hearing date:


12 March 2003



Judgment of:


Raphael FM



REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant:


Applicant in person



Counsel for the Respondent:


Mr J Smith



ORDERS

(1) Application dismissed.

(2) Applicant to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $2,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES

COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

SYDNEY


SZ 1205 of 2002

NAAJ


Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS




Respondent


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the applicant appears on his own behalf assisted by an interpreter. As can be seen from the transcript, if required, he has made it clear that he fully understands that the decision of the Tribunal in respect to his application cannot be impugned. He understands that the Tribunal was entitled to make its own findings as to his credibility and whilst he disagrees with those findings he appears to accept that they are legally sustainable.

2. I am aware that the applicant has received certain advice under the Minister's scheme. He has told me so and I have independently checked, not on the nature of the advice, but on the fact that he did receive advice from counsel who I know to be highly experienced in this field. I can therefore assume that the applicant's advice to me today concerning his views as to the case are not uninformed. In all those circumstances it seems unnecessary to proceed further with the matter and I dismiss the application.

3. I get the very strong impression from what the applicant has been saying to me that he has come to the Court today not to argue his case but to explain to the Court why he does not intend to argue it. If he had made some representations to the respondent in writing it may well have been that the application would have been discontinued and some order for costs which took into account the fact that the Minister would not be required to attend would have been made. I propose to provide the applicant with some assistance in this regard and the order for costs which I make is that he pay the respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $2,000.00 in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court Rules, Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(A).

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Associate:

Date:
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia