Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v BBS16 (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 199
The appropriate costs order reflects that both parties had mixed success; the Minister is to pay 50 percent of the first respondent's costs in the lower court and there is no order as to costs on appeal. The Court found no misconduct by the Minister in relation to costs and followed established discretion under s 43.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 November 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Judgment on Costs and Orders After Appeal Allowed
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; partial success on notice of contention; specific orders made regarding costs and earlier orders set aside.
- Legal Topics
- ['costs' 'judicial Review' 'migration Decisions']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Costs and Orders After Appeal Allowed
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Appropriate order as to costs of appeal and proceedings below']
Ratio Decidendi
The appropriate costs order reflects that both parties had mixed success; the Minister is to pay 50 percent of the first respondent's costs in the lower court and there is no order as to costs on appeal. The Court found no misconduct by the Minister in relation to costs and followed established discretion under s 43.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; partial success on notice of contention; specific orders made regarding costs and earlier orders set aside.
Orders
- ['The appeal be allowed.' 'Grounds 1 and 3 of the notice of contention be allowed.' 'The notice of contention otherwise be dismissed.' "The orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 1 February 2017 be set aside and, in substitution: (a) A writ of certiorari issue to the second respondent quashing its...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment