Sochorova v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 445

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sochorova v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 445 Citation: Sochorova v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 445

Parties: TEREZIE SOCHOROVA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: QUD 338 of 2008

Judge: DOWSETT J

Date of judgment: 29 April 2011

Date of hearing: 29 April 2011

Place: Brisbane

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 5

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms N Kidson

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz

Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION QUD 338 of 2008

BETWEEN: TEREZIE SOCHOROVA

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE: 29 APRIL 2011 PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant has an unfortunate history of litigation with the first respondent. Her application for a visa was, on two occasions, refused, of which decisions she successfully sought review. As a result of this, and over a period of six or seven years, she eventually obtained an appropriate visa and remains in Australia. At some stage she applied in the Federal Magistrates Court for a visa, notwithstanding the fact that she had already received one. I am told that in the course of those proceedings, it became obvious to the Federal Magistrate that the applicant was actually seeking compensation for the delay in granting her visa and, on that basis, the application was dismissed. 2 The applicant applied for an extension of time in which to appeal from that decision which application was heard by Spender J. His Honour considered that there was no merit in the appeal and, on that basis, declined to extend time. He therefore dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay costs. The applicant has now started proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking compensation. Apart from claims for damages for pain, suffering and inconvenience, she claims for loss of entitlement to a pension for several years as a result of the delay in granting her visa. 3 It seems to me that she may well be worthy of some sympathy in that regard. It is most unfortunate that she should have suffered this long history of delay in obtaining what she was apparently entitled to, and that it should have caused her loss of entitlement to a pension. One might hope that the Commonwealth will find some way of compensating her for any such loss. 4 In the present application, the applicant seeks to stay the order for costs made by Spender J, primarily upon the basis that she has no funds at the moment, but expects to recover damages in the Supreme Court. That such proceedings are on foot offers no justification for staying the order for costs. It seems unlikely that the Commonwealth will be able to recover anything from her. It may be better that it not try too hard so to do. If the facts are as they presently appear, then the Commonwealth should make a realistic assessment of any loss which the applicant may genuinely have suffered as a result of the delay in granting her visa. Consideration should then be given to an appropriate ex gratia payment. I hope that the matter can be sorted out relatively quickly. If the Commonwealth's officers were responsible for any such loss, then it would be as well if the Commonwealth were seen to be trying to resolve the matter speedily and justly. 5 The application will be dismissed. I order the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of the application. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.