SZEQH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2008] FCA 1736

SZEQH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2008] FCA 1736

Although the Minister was generally successful, the Court itself identified the cross-examination issue as one requiring investigation for the public good and referred the matter for pro bono assistance. Because that part of the proceedings advanced the public interest, the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs only up to and including the hearing on 21 February 2008, with no order as to costs thereafter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Decision in Migration Appeal / On Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia; Costs Determined After Hearing of the Limited Cross Examination Issue
Outcome
The appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs up to and including the hearing on 21 February 2008; otherwise there was no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Where Matter of Public Importance Is Raised' 'pro Bono Referral' 'protection Visa Review' 'refugee Review Tribunal Discretion to Allow Cross Examination']
['costs' 'migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['costs Where Matter of Public Importance Is Raised' 'pro Bono Referral' 'protection Visa Review' 'refugee Review Tribunal Discretion to Allow Cross Examination']

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 Decision in Migration Appeal / On Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia; Costs Determined After Hearing of the Limited Cross Examination Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should pay the first respondent's costs for the whole of the proceedings as the unsuccessful party." 'Whether costs should not be ordered for the part of the proceedings concerning the cross-examination issue because the Court considered its ventilation to be for the public good.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Minister was generally successful, the Court itself identified the cross-examination issue as one requiring investigation for the public good and referred the matter for pro bono assistance. Because that part of the proceedings advanced the public interest, the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs only up to and including the hearing on 21 February 2008, with no order as to costs thereafter.

Court Disposition

The appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs up to and including the hearing on 21 February 2008; otherwise there was no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to these proceedings up to and including the hearing on 21 February 2008." 'There otherwise be no order as to costs.']