AUR23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1349

AUR23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1349

Applicant was almost certain to succeed given the outcome in Davis HCA; Minister's concession that departmental officer acted in excess of power led to the applicant achieving the practical result sought. In these rare circumstances and having regard to conduct and material before the court (including the sum involved and absence of reply submissions), it is appropriate and proportionate for Minister to pay costs in lump sum.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Costs Determination Following Dismissal by Consent
Outcome
First respondent to pay applicant's costs in lump sum.
Legal Topics
['ministerial Intervention' 'jurisdiction of Federal Court' 'costs on Discontinuance' 'delegation of Executive Power']
['administrative Law' 'constitutional Law' 'human Rights Law'] ['ministerial Intervention' 'jurisdiction of Federal Court' 'costs on Discontinuance' 'delegation of Executive Power']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Costs Determination Following Dismissal by Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Minister should pay applicant's costs following dismissal by consent" "Whether departmental officer's decision not to refer Ministerial intervention was beyond power" 'Whether Federal Court had jurisdiction to grant relief sought by applicant']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant was almost certain to succeed given the outcome in Davis HCA; Minister's concession that departmental officer acted in excess of power led to the applicant achieving the practical result sought. In these rare circumstances and having regard to conduct and material before the court (including the sum involved and absence of reply submissions), it is appropriate and proportionate for Minister to pay costs in lump sum.

Court Disposition

First respondent to pay applicant's costs in lump sum.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding in the lump sum of $8,500."]