Merriman v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FCA 46

Merriman v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FCA 46

Given the Minister's late change in position regarding notice of removal and lack of reasonable explanation, it cannot be said that the interlocutory application was brought unreasonably. The costs of the application for the interlocutory injunction should be costs in the cause, to be borne by the ultimate loser of the substantive proceedings.

Parties
Applicant: Matthew John Merriman; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Injunction; Application for Leave to Appeal / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Costs of and incidental to the interlocutory injunction are ordered to be in the cause.
Legal Topics
Costs, Interlocutory Injunctions, Withdrawal of Application, Court Discretion in Costs Orders
Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Costs Interlocutory Injunctions Withdrawal of Application Court Discretion in Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew John Merriman

Applicant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Minister for Home Affairs

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Injunction; Application for Leave to Appeal / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the Minister following withdrawal of interlocutory application
  2. 2 Whether costs should follow the event or be in the cause given procedural history
  3. 3 Whether applicant or Minister acted unreasonably in bringing or opposing application

Ratio Decidendi

Given the Minister's late change in position regarding notice of removal and lack of reasonable explanation, it cannot be said that the interlocutory application was brought unreasonably. The costs of the application for the interlocutory injunction should be costs in the cause, to be borne by the ultimate loser of the substantive proceedings.

Court Disposition

Costs of and incidental to the interlocutory injunction are ordered to be in the cause.

Orders

  • The costs of and incidental to the interlocutory injunction first sought by way of oral application made on 12 July 2024, including the costs of and incidental to determining the costs of that application, are costs in the cause.