MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 138

MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 138

The appellant did not establish circumstances justifying departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. The Minister was wholly successful in defending the appeal, there was nothing in the Minister's conduct warranting a different order, and the existence of a reasonable basis for prosecuting an appeal did not entitle the losing appellant to avoid the usual costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs on Appeal in Migration Judicial Review Proceeding / After Dismissal of Appeal; Costs Determined on the Papers Following Written Submissions
Outcome
The appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal; no order was made as to the costs of the second and third respondents.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'discretion as to Costs' 'migration Judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error']
['administrative Law' 'immigration Law' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'discretion as to Costs' 'migration Judicial Review' 'extension of Time' '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

Costs on Appeal in Migration Judicial Review Proceeding / After Dismissal of Appeal; Costs Determined on the Papers Following Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant and the Minister should each bear their own costs of the appeal or whether the appellant should pay the Minister's costs of the appeal." "Whether circumstances justified departure from the usual order that costs follow the event, including concerns about the Federal Circuit Court's approach to s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Court's clarification of the proper approach."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not establish circumstances justifying departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. The Minister was wholly successful in defending the appeal, there was nothing in the Minister's conduct warranting a different order, and the existence of a reasonable basis for prosecuting an appeal did not entitle the losing appellant to avoid the usual costs order.

Court Disposition

The appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal; no order was made as to the costs of the second and third respondents.

Orders

  • ["The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]