AOU21 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 212

AOU21 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 212

Given the applicant’s substantial success in the original jurisdiction proceeding, but partial failure, costs were apportioned at 80% in his favour, while no costs order was made in the appeal due to its redundancy and overlap with the original jurisdiction proceeding.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: AOU21; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Related Appeal and Original Jurisdiction Proceedings Heard Together / Post Judgment, Costs Determination
Outcome
Respondents to pay 80% of applicant’s costs in the original jurisdiction proceeding; no order as to costs in the appeal proceeding.
Legal Topics
Costs, Declaratory Relief, Immigration Detention, Federal Jurisdiction
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Costs Declaratory Relief Immigration Detention Federal Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AOU21

Applicant/appellant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Related Appeal and Original Jurisdiction Proceedings Heard Together / Post Judgment, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate apportionment of costs in related appeal and original jurisdiction proceedings
  2. 2 Effect of applicant's partial success on costs orders
  3. 3 Whether appeal should result in a costs order given substantial overlap of issues

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicant’s substantial success in the original jurisdiction proceeding, but partial failure, costs were apportioned at 80% in his favour, while no costs order was made in the appeal due to its redundancy and overlap with the original jurisdiction proceeding.

Court Disposition

Respondents to pay 80% of applicant’s costs in the original jurisdiction proceeding; no order as to costs in the appeal proceeding.

Orders

  • Respondents pay 80% of applicant's costs in NSD1378/2020, as agreed or taxed.
  • No order as to costs in NSD1355/2020.