FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Marshood v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1448
N44 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1127 Approved
WALID ABU MARSHOOD AND KADIJEH WALID ABDALLA MARSHOOD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 377 of 1999
KIEFEL J
21 OCTOBER 1999
BRISBANE (Heard in Sydney)
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
N377 OF 1999 |
ON REVIEW FROM A DECISION OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
|
BETWEEN: |
WALID ABU MARSHOOD AND KADIJEH WALID ABDALLA MARSHOOD Applicants
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
KIEFEL J |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
21 OCTOBER 1999 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
BRISBANE |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The decision be set aside.
2. The matter be remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration according to law.
3. The respondent pay one-half of the applicants’ costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
N377 OF 1999 |
ON REVIEW FROM A DECISION OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
|
BETWEEN: |
WALID ABU MARSHOOD AND KADIJEH WALID ABDALLA MARSHOOD Applicants
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
KIEFEL J |
|
DATE: |
21 OCTOBER 1999 |
|
PLACE: |
BRISBANE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(COSTS)
1 When delivering my reasons for Judgment on the application, I advised the parties that I was inclined to order that the applicants have only one-half of their costs, since the substantial part of the hearing (and I also assumed preparation time) was taken up with the constitutional arguments. I found no substance in them.
2 I have now received submissions. I adhere to my preliminary view. The arguments put by the applicants were not only unsuccessful, they had been put and found to be plainly wrong in N44 v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1999] FCA 1127, for reasons with which I agreed. It is not to the point that the arguments are considered important. I do not think it could even be said that different views are likely to be held about them.
3 I have considered the Minister’s submission that, in restricting the applicants’ costs in this way, the respondent is nevertheless required to pay his own costs on the rejected arguments, although the Minister does not take the matter further and press for an order that each party pay their own costs. I would not think that a proper result in any event, given that the application was necessitated by an erroneous decision.
4 The respondent should pay one-half of the applicants’ costs.
|
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: 21 October 1999
|
Counsel for the Applicant: |
Mr R Killalea |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Applicant: |
Samir’s Multiculture Legal Services |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Mr G Johnson |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Australian Government Solicitor |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
20 September 1999 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
21 October 1999 |
