Price v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2023] FCA 542

Price v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2023] FCA 542

The applicant is to pay 80% of the costs of the first respondent, reflecting a reduction due to the arguable claim for habeas corpus, but most costs related to the application for review, with costs to be assessed by a registrar if not agreed.

Parties
Applicant: Clarissa Amy Price; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus Application / Costs Judgment After Dismissal of Application
Outcome
Costs order made against the applicant for 80% of the first respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
Costs Discretion, Immigration Detention, Habeas Corpus, Visa Cancellation Review
Administrative Law Immigration Law Civil Procedure Costs Discretion Immigration Detention Habeas Corpus Visa Cancellation Review

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clarissa Amy Price

Applicant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus Application / Costs Judgment After Dismissal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant should pay costs after dismissal of judicial review and habeas corpus application
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of costs in proceedings involving immigration detention and habeas corpus claim

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is to pay 80% of the costs of the first respondent, reflecting a reduction due to the arguable claim for habeas corpus, but most costs related to the application for review, with costs to be assessed by a registrar if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Costs order made against the applicant for 80% of the first respondent's costs.

Orders

  • Subject to order 2, the applicant do pay 80% of the costs of the first respondent, such costs to be assessed by a registrar if not agreed.
  • There be no order as to the costs of determining the question of the appropriate order as to costs.