Sarkar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 887

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sarkar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 887

SHEIK SAADI SARKAR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 239 OF 2000 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 20 JUNE 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N239 OF 2000

BETWEEN: SHEIK SAADI SARKAR

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 JUNE 2000

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N239 OF 2000

BETWEEN: SHEIK SAADI SARKAR

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 20 JUNE 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 20 March 2000, the applicant commenced proceedings in this Court seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given at Sydney on 24 February 2000. The applicant has attended court today. He has stated that he no longer wishes to pursue the proceedings and that he consents to his application being dismissed. The only question that remains is that of costs. 2 Mr Peek, who appears on behalf of the respondent, has submitted that costs should simply follow the event. Accordingly, he submits that the appropriate order is that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. Mr Sarkar, who appears today unrepresented but with the assistance of an interpreter, says that a costs order should not be made against him. He says that he has decided not to proceed with the case because he has been unable to afford a lawyer. 3 Although I have sympathy with the position of the applicant, I see no reason in this case to depart from the usual principle that costs should follow the event. Since the applicant has consented to the dismissal of the proceedings, he should pay the Minister's costs. The fact that the applicant has few resources might be material to the question as to whether the Minister can enforce the order for costs. It is not, however, of itself a reason to refrain from making a costs order against the applicant. 4 I therefore order that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville.