QJKY v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 879

QJKY v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 879

Applicant is entitled to costs of the whole proceeding because he achieved the practical outcome sought (release from detention and decision on visa application), aligning with precedents such as CZA19, and there is no justification for indemnity costs nor for issue-by-issue costs allocation; respondents are entitled to set off any costs liability arising from prior proceeding against payable costs in this proceeding.

Parties
Applicant: QJKY; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Originating Application for Judicial Review and Related Relief / Costs Determination After Discontinuance
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay applicant's costs of the proceeding; respondents permitted to set off liability under this order against any costs payable by applicant to first respondent under earlier costs order.
Legal Topics
Costs in Discontinued Proceedings, Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Set Off of Costs Liabilities
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Costs in Discontinued Proceedings Habeas Corpus Mandamus Set Off of Costs Liabilities

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QJKY

Applicant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Application for Judicial Review and Related Relief / Costs Determination After Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant is entitled to costs after discontinuance when practical outcome was achieved.
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded.
  3. 3 Whether costs can be set off against outstanding liability from earlier proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant is entitled to costs of the whole proceeding because he achieved the practical outcome sought (release from detention and decision on visa application), aligning with precedents such as CZA19, and there is no justification for indemnity costs nor for issue-by-issue costs allocation; respondents are entitled to set off any costs liability arising from prior proceeding against payable costs in this proceeding.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay applicant's costs of the proceeding; respondents permitted to set off liability under this order against any costs payable by applicant to first respondent under earlier costs order.

Orders

  • The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding, to be taxed if not agreed.
  • The respondents be entitled to set off, against the liability arising under order 1, the whole of the amount that is or becomes payable by the applicant to the first respondent pursuant to order 2 made on 23 March 2021 in Proceeding No. VID616/2020.