Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 3) [2012] FCA 1021

Both the appeal and interlocutory application were dismissed, and no special circumstances warranting a departure from the usual rule for costs were demonstrated, so the appellant should pay the Minister’s costs.

Parties: Appellant: Chandrakant Bhagabhai Patel; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Second Respondent: Migration Review Tribunal
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 17 September 2012
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Costs Order After Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome: Appellant directed to pay costs of the Minister for both the appeal and interlocutory application, to be assessed if not agreed.
Legal Topics: Migration, Appeals, Costs

Administrative Law Migration Appeals Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

Chandrakant Bhagabhai Patel

Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

First Respondent

Migration Review Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Order After Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the appellant should pay costs to the respondent after dismissal of appeal and interlocutory application

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appellant directed to pay costs of the Minister for both the appeal and interlocutory application, to be assessed if not agreed.

Orders

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.