FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 3) [2012] FCA 1021
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Appellant | |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the costs of the interlocutory application filed 4 November 2011, on a standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | QUD 67 of 2011 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
BETWEEN: | CHANDRAKANT BHAGABHAI PATEL Appellant
|
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
JUDGE: | COLLIER J |
DATE: | 17 SEPTEMBER 2012 |
PLACE: | BRISBANE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 On 4 September 2012 I delivered judgment in the substantive proceeding (Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 958). In that judgment I dismissed the appeal commenced by the appellant. At the time I ordered the parties to file submissions in respect of costs within seven days.
2 Submissions were filed on behalf of the Minister on 10 September 2012. In those submissions the Minister sought costs, both in respect of the substantive appeal and in respect of an interlocutory application filed by the appellant on 4 November 2012 which was also dismissed (Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2012] FCA 1020).
3 This afternoon, submissions were filed on behalf of the appellant in relation to costs incurred in relation to the substantive appeal. In summary, the appellant contends that Mr Patel was justified in bringing the appeal in circumstances where there was no dispute that the person who signed the relevant certificate had no authority to do so. No submissions were made by the appellant in response to the Minister’s submissions concerning costs incurred in respect of the interlocutory application.
4 The award of costs is at the discretion of the Court. In the absence of special circumstances justifying some other order, costs follow the event: Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) ATPR 40-748 at 48,236 per Toohey J.
5 Both the appeal and the interlocutory application were dismissed. No circumstances warranting a departure from the usual rule have been demonstrated by the submissions of the appellant. In my view the appellant ought to be directed to pay the costs of the Minister in relation to both the appeal and the interlocutory application.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Collier. |
Associate:
