Federal Court of Australia
Halal Restaurant Supplies Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCA 1660
ORDERS
HALAL RESTAURANT SUPPLIES PTY LTD Appellant | ||
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent | |
DATE OF ORDER: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,500.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS
QUD 152 of 2020 | ||
| ||
BETWEEN: | HALAL RESTAURANT SUPPLIES PTY LTD Appellant | |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent | |
order made by: | ALLSOP CJ |
DATE OF ORDER: | 16 NOVEMBER 2020 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,500.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
(Revised from the transcript)
ALLSOP CJ
1 In these matters I delivered a short judgment on 2 November 2020 identifying why these appeals were incompetent. I stood the matters over for the limited purpose set out in [6] of Halal Restaurant Supplies Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1589.
2 The appellant in each matter indicated through its representative Mr Tien today that they propose to seek relief in the original jurisdiction under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) against the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, being the orders from which the appeals that are incompetent were filed.
3 That means that the orders today in each matter should be: first, that the appeal be dismissed as incompetent. The second order should deal with costs of the first respondent in each matter. I was initially minded to carve out room for each present appellant to move any relevant costs to the original jurisdiction matter in due course. Having heard from the Minister’s representative Ms Rayment, on reflection I do not consider that course to be appropriate. Both sides agree that the interests of justice would be met by a lump sum costs order putting an end to the costs issue. The parties are agreed that the appropriate amount of costs up to 2 November 2020 was $1,250 in each matter. Ms Rayment has been brought to a further case management hearing to finalise the matters and seeks an order for $1,500 in each matter, which I do not think is unreasonable. In those circumstances, the costs order will be that the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs in each matter in the sum of $1,500.
4 Thus the orders of the Court in each matter are:
1. The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,500.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Allsop. |
Associate:
