Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CZBB (No 2) [2013] FCA 1186

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CZBB (No 2) [2013] FCA 1186

The costs orders should not be varied to require each party to bear his or her own costs because, absent the matters raised by the Circuit judge of his own motion, the Minister would have succeeded below and costs would have followed the event, and the first and second respondents could have avoided or narrowed the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; Costs Application / After Orders Were Announced in the Appeal, Application to Vary Costs Orders and for Lump Sum Costs
Outcome
Leave was granted to file the affidavit; the first and second respondents' application to vary costs so that each party bear their own costs was refused; the appeal costs order was varied to assess the appellant's costs at $27,500; a lump sum order for costs below was declined.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'lump Sum Costs' 'variation of Costs Orders' 'federal Court Appeal' 'judicial Review']
['immigration' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'lump Sum Costs' 'variation of Costs Orders' 'federal Court Appeal' 'judicial Review']

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

Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; Costs Application / After Orders Were Announced in the Appeal, Application to Vary Costs Orders and for Lump Sum Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs orders for the proceeding below and the appeal should be varied so that each party pay his or her own costs.' 'Whether the appellant should be granted leave to file the affidavit of Jan Kathryn Cumming affirmed on 6 November 2013.' 'Whether the appellant should receive lump sum costs for the appeal.' 'Whether the appellant should receive a lump sum order for costs of the proceeding in the Federal Circuit Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs orders should not be varied to require each party to bear his or her own costs because, absent the matters raised by the Circuit judge of his own motion, the Minister would have succeeded below and costs would have followed the event, and the first and second respondents could have avoided or narrowed the appeal by conceding or consenting to orders. The Minister's appeal costs were reasonably claimed on a lump sum basis, warranting assessment at $27,500, but the costs of the proceeding below should be left to the taxing officer.

Court Disposition

Leave was granted to file the affidavit; the first and second respondents' application to vary costs so that each party bear their own costs was refused; the appeal costs order was varied to assess the appellant's costs at $27,500; a lump sum order for costs below was declined.

Orders

  • ['Leave be granted to the appellant to file in Court the affidavit of Jan Kathryn Cumming affirmed on 6 November 2013.' "Order 4 made by the Court earlier this day (8 November 2013) be varied by substituting the following order in place of the said earlier order: 4. Pursuant to r 40.02(b) and (c) of the Federal...