Othman, A.J.A. & Anor v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1995] FCA 326

CATCHWORDS PROCEDURE - costs - departing from the general rule - proceeding conceded on ground other than appeal brought - no argument on the merits - whether costs should be apportioned Kaur v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Carr J, 9 February 1994, unreported) Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and Anor v Mok Gek Bouy (1994) 127 ALR 223 ASC v Aust-Home Investments Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 194 J T Stratford and Sons Ltd v Ludler (1969) 1 WLR 1547 ASIM JAMILE ABU OTHMAN and ANTOINETTA ABU OTHMAN v THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS NO WAG 10 OF 1995 JUSTICE R D NICHOLSON PERTH 24 MAY 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) GENERAL DIVISION ) NO WAG 10 OF 1995 B E T W E E N: ASIM JAMILE ABU OTHMAN First Applicant and ANTOINETTA ABU OTHMAN Second Applicant and THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: JUSTICE R D NICHOLSON DATE OF ORDER: 24 MAY 1995 WHERE MADE: PERTH THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The respondent pay the applicants' costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) GENERAL DIVISION ) NO WAG 10 OF 1995 B E T W E E N ASIM JAMILE ABU OTHMAN First Applicant and ANTOINETTA ABU OTHMAN Second Applicant and THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE R D NICHOLSON DATE: 24 MAY 1995 PLACE: PERTH REASONS FOR ORDER This matter arises from an application for an Order to Review a decision made by Mr Steven Meredith of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, on 22 December 1994, ("the decision"), which refused an application by the first applicant for a grant of resident status pursuant to s6(2) of the Migration Act 1958. At a directions hearing on 21 April 1995 the respondent conceded that Mr Meredith did not have the authority to act as a delegate of the Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at the time the decision was made. The respondent further conceded that the grounds for defending this matter had therefore "collapsed". Accordingly, an order was made in the course of the directions hearing that the decision be quashed. The respondent then contend that the ordinary rule as to costs, namely that costs should follow the event, should not be applied in these circumstances.