Chu Sing Wun v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 153

CATCHWORDS

PROCEDURE - costs - whether apportionment appropriate Borthwick v Evening Post (1888) 37 ChD 449 Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 Cummings v Lewis (1993) 113 ALR 285 Jamal v Secretary, Department of Health (1988) 14 NSWLR 252 Jones v Merionethshire Permanent Benefit Building Society [1892] 1 Ch 173 Scherer v Counting Instruments Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 615 CHU SING WUN v THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS NO WAG 115 OF 1994 R D NICHOLSON J PERTH 19 MARCH 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) NO WAG 115 OF 1994

B E T W E E N: CHU SING WUN Applicant and THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: R D NICHOLSON J DATE OF ORDER: 19 MARCH 1997 WHERE MADE: PERTH THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The respondents pay 75 per cent of the applicant's 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 115 OF 1994

B E T W E E N CHU SING WUN Applicant and THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent

CORAM: R D NICHOLSON J DATE: 19 MARCH 1997 PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT On 24 February 1997 the Court ordered that the respondent's decision made by his delegate on 12 September 1994 be set aside and the matter the subject of the decision remitted to the respondent for determination according to law. The issue of costs was reserved for written submissions. For the respondent it is contended each party should bear its own costs or, in the alternative, the respondent should only pay 50 per cent of the applicant's costs. This submission is founded on the contention that the applicant was only successful on three of forty three grounds of review so that the respondent was put to the task of responding to a number of issues on which the applicant was not successful. Additionally, it is contended that a significant amount of time was spent at trial in relation to issues of access to confidential material on which the applicant was ultimately unsuccessful. Furthermore, issues were activated which had been litigated before Beaumont J and which were found by the Court in this proceeding not to be open to further argument.