Okoh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2023] FCAFC 81

Okoh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2023] FCAFC 81

Although the Minister's interlocutory application to adjourn the final hearing was unsuccessful, it was properly brought, served the purpose of assisting the Court by ventilating whether the appeal should proceed while another Full Court judgment remained outstanding, and had a clear basis. However, because the timing of the amended notice of appeal was explained by the appellant's late pro bono representation, the appellant should not bear the costs burden for the interlocutory application. The appropriate order was that each party bear their own costs of the interlocutory application. For the final hearing, costs followed the event, so the appellant was ordered to pay the Minister's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Costs / Determination of Costs Following Dismissal of an Interlocutory Application and Dismissal of the Appeal
Outcome
The parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the interlocutory application, and the appellant was otherwise ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceedings on a standard basis.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'costs Following the Event' 'adjournment Application' 'leave to Amend Notice of Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'migration Law' 'costs'] ['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'costs Following the Event' 'adjournment Application' 'leave to Amend Notice of Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error']

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

Appeal; Costs / Determination of Costs Following Dismissal of an Interlocutory Application and Dismissal of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the unsuccessful interlocutory application to vacate the hearing." 'Whether each party should bear their own costs of the interlocutory application because it was properly brought and served a purpose.' 'What costs order should be made for the final hearing after the Minister succeeded in the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Minister's interlocutory application to adjourn the final hearing was unsuccessful, it was properly brought, served the purpose of assisting the Court by ventilating whether the appeal should proceed while another Full Court judgment remained outstanding, and had a clear basis. However, because the timing of the amended notice of appeal was explained by the appellant's late pro bono representation, the appellant should not bear the costs burden for the interlocutory application. The appropriate order was that each party bear their own costs of the interlocutory application. For the final hearing, costs followed the event, so the appellant was ordered to pay the Minister's...

Court Disposition

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the interlocutory application, and the appellant was otherwise ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceedings on a standard basis.

Orders

  • ['The parties bear their own costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application.' "The appellant otherwise pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis."]