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

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Costs - migration.

Samuel v Minister for Immigration (No.2) [2004] FMCA 877 (26 November 2004)

Samuel v Minister for Immigration (No.2) [2004] FMCA 877 (26 November 2004)
Last Updated: 6 December 2004

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAMUEL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION (No.2)
[2004] FMCA 877




PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Costs - migration.




Oschlack v Richmond River Council (1998) HCA 11

Applicant:
COLIN AMBROSE SAMUEL




Respondent:


MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS




File No:


MLG710 of 2003




Delivered on:


26 November 2004




Delivered at:


Melbourne




Date of Last Submissions:


27 October 2004




Judgment of:


McInnis FM




REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:


Mr T Hurley




Solicitors for the Applicant:


Armstrong Ross




Counsel for the Respondent:


Mr W Mosley




Solicitors for the Respondent:


Australian Government Solicitor




ORDERS

The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $7,700.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES

COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

MELBOURNE



MLG 710 of 2003

AMBROSE COLIN SAMUEL



Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS





Respondent


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter I delivered a decision on 19 October 2004 whereby

I dismissed the application and indicated that I would hear the parties in relation to the issue of costs.

2. The Respondent by submissions in writing dated 27 October 2004 seeks costs fixed in the sum of $7,700.00 based upon an attached schedule of costs. The Respondent otherwise asserts that costs should follow the event though recognising that the Court has an unfettered discretion as to whether to make an order for costs though that discretion must be exercised judicially in accordance with established principles and factors directly connected with litigation. I accept that in principle is the correct statement of the law (see Oschlack v Richmond River Council (1998) HCA 11). It is also the case that costs usually follow the event. It is otherwise submitted by the Respondent that it has properly responded to the Applicant's application for judicial review by progressing the matter towards hearing.

3. In the absence of any submissions to the contrary I agree with the Respondents submissions and in the exercise of the Court's discretion

I am satisfied that costs should follow the event in this instance and I am satisfied that a fair and reasonable amount for costs is the sum of $7,700 as claimed by the Respondent. Accordingly the further order of the court will be that the Applicant pay the Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $7,700.

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

Associate:

Date: 26 November 2004
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia