NABC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 72
No party was entitled to an unconditional costs order; having weighed the proceeding's history, the applicable legislation, the respondent's concession on the notice of motion, and the practical difficulties and additional costs of making separate costs orders for different aspects of the matter, the Court concluded that there should be no order as to costs.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 February 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Migration Application / Costs Order
- Outcome
- No order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['costs' 'notice of Objection to Competency' 'notice to Admit' 'migration Act Privative Clause']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Migration Application / Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether any party should receive a costs order in the proceeding.' "Whether the respondent's untimely response to the notice to admit affected the appropriate costs order."]
Ratio Decidendi
No party was entitled to an unconditional costs order; having weighed the proceeding's history, the applicable legislation, the respondent's concession on the notice of motion, and the practical difficulties and additional costs of making separate costs orders for different aspects of the matter, the Court concluded that there should be no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
No order as to costs.
Orders
- ['There be no order as to costs.']
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