FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZQTG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2012] FCA 895 Citation: SZQTG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2012] FCA 895 Related to: SZQTG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 891 Parties: SZQTG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number: NSD 712 of 2012 Judge: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 21 August 2012 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Determination of fixed costs – whether to grant Date of hearing: 21 August 2012 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear Solicitor for the First Respondent: A Crittenden of Clayton Utz Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 712 of 2012 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZQTG Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE OF ORDER: 21 AUGUST 2012 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The costs which the first respondent may recover from the applicant be in the sum of $2,431. 2. Leave be granted to the first respondent to file in Court the affidavit of Ms Bulut sworn 20 August 2012. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 712 of 2012 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZQTG Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE: 21 AUGUST 2012 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This matter was heard by me on 14 August. I made the following orders: (1) that the appeal be dismissed; (2) the appellant pay the first respondent's costs. 2 The first respondent now applies for an order that there be a determination of fixed costs. The Minister relies upon an affidavit of a Ms Bulut, sworn on 20 August 2012. That affidavit suggests – and I accept – that the actual costs incurred by the Minister to date in this matter are in the vicinity of $3,740.50. Ms Bulut believes that it is likely that, upon taxation, the Minister might expect to recover 65 per cent in respect of professional costs and 100 per cent in respect of disbursements. On that basis she believes that a figure in the vicinity of $2,431 is likely to be recovered upon taxation. 3 Given the nature of the proceedings it seems to me to be appropriate to make the fixed costs order which is sought, and I order that the costs which the first respondent may recover from the applicant, pursuant to the costs order made a few moments ago, be in the sum of $2,431. I grant leave to the first respondent to file in Court the affidavit of Ms Bulut. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram. Associate: Dated: 21 August 2012