Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Subakaran v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 707 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 48B SIVAGNANAM SUBAKARAN V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS. N772 OF 1999
R D NICHOLSON J 26 MAY 2000 PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY N772 OF 1999
BETWEEN: SIVAGNANAM SUBAKARAN
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: R D NICHOLSON J
DATE OF ORDER: 26 MAY 2000
WHERE MADE: PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The applicant pay the respondent'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 N772 OF 1999
BETWEEN: SIVAGNANAM SUBAKARAN
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: R D NICHOLSON J
DATE: 26 MAY 2000
PLACE: PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This application was argued before the Court on 5 May 2000. The application was dismissed but costs were reserved. The reservation of costs occurred because the question was raised at the hearing whether an award of costs, which had been sought by the respondent, would, if granted, bar the applicant from making a further protection visa application in the event of the Minister making an appropriate determination allowing him to do so under s 48B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). 2 Submissions have now been received from the respondent assuring the Court that any costs order made in this matter will be no bar to the applicant's situation being considered under s 48B; will not prevent his making a further protection visa application should the Minister make a determination pursuant to s 48B; and will not prevent a protection visa from being granted to him in the event it is otherwise appropriate. On the basis of those submissions it is appropriate that the respondent should be awarded his costs of the application. The order will be made accordingly. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice R D NICHOLSON.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate