Soh v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 1524

Soh v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 1524

Security for costs was ordered because the applicant was impecunious, ordinarily resident outside Australia, the Commonwealth had succeeded before the primary judge, and the intended appeal had extremely slight prospects: the denial of procedural fairness in the decision to transfer the applicant did not appear to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Appeal Proceedings / Appeal From a Decision of a Single Judge; Security for Costs Motion Before Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part; applicant ordered to provide $30,000 security, with dismissal for non-compliance.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'appeal' 'impecunious Applicant Ordinarily Resident Outside Australia' 'procedural Fairness' 'false Imprisonment' 'immigration Detention']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'migration Detention'] ['security for Costs' 'appeal' 'impecunious Applicant Ordinarily Resident Outside Australia' 'procedural Fairness' 'false Imprisonment' 'immigration Detention']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Security for Costs in Appeal Proceedings / Appeal From a Decision of a Single Judge; Security for Costs Motion Before Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be ordered to provide security for costs for an intended appeal.' 'Whether an order for security for costs would stifle a reasonably arguable claim.' 'What amount of security for costs should be ordered.' 'Whether the applicant had sufficient prospects of showing that denial of procedural fairness in the transfer decision rendered his detention in state correctional institutions unlawful.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the applicant was impecunious, ordinarily resident outside Australia, the Commonwealth had succeeded before the primary judge, and the intended appeal had extremely slight prospects: the denial of procedural fairness in the decision to transfer the applicant did not appear to render unlawful his continued immigration detention in Silverwater Prison or Long Bay Gaol. Security was fixed at $30,000 for anticipated appeal costs; additional security for Korean enforcement costs was not presently necessary because security for costs would avoid the need for enforcement unless circumstances changed.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part; applicant ordered to provide $30,000 security, with dismissal for non-compliance.

Orders

  • ['The applicant provide to the respondent security for costs in a form acceptable to the respondent or, in the event of any dispute, in a form acceptable to the Registrar, in the amount of $30,000 by 4pm (Sydney time) on 14 December 2008.' 'If the applicant does not comply with Order 1 within the time specified in...