SZVED v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2017] FCA 395

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZVED v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2017] FCA 395 Appeal from: SZVED v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCCA 801

File number: NSD 456 of 2016

Judge: GILMOUR J

Date of judgment: 19 April 2017

Catchwords: COSTS – whether costs should be awarded in a specified sum pursuant to s 43(3)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(3)(d)

Date of hearing: Heard on the papers

Registry: New South Wales

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 8

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr M Wiese of Clayton Utz

ORDERS NSD 456 of 2016

BETWEEN: SZVED Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNALS Second Respondent

JUDGE: GILMOUR J DATE OF ORDER: 19 april 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed pursuant to section 43(3)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in the sum of $3,200. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GILMOUR J: 1 The appeal in this matter was dismissed by order dated 5 August 2016. 2 The first respondent was granted leave to file a minute of proposed orders in regards to costs and an accompanying affidavit. 3 The appellant was given 7 days from the date of service of the first respondent's minute and affidavit to file any responding minute and/or affidavit evidence. 4 The first respondent filed short minutes of order with a supporting affidavit of Mr Mark Wiese affirmed on 1 August 2016. Mr Wiese is a lawyer in the employ of the first respondent's lawyers in these proceedings. He deposed to the details of those lawyers' costs billing system including disbursements and the particulars of those services in this matter which attracted professional costs, including all preparation for the appeal and its hearing. Those costs totalled $4,923.40. Based on information and belief, he deposed that the first respondent generally recovers between 65%-75% in respect of professional costs upon taxation. 5 On that basis he deposed that the first respondent would recover a sum within the range of $3,200 to $3,690. 6 I take this to mean that the bill for professional costs would likely be taxed at a sum in that range. 7 The first respondent, on this basis, seeks a fixed costs order against the appellant pursuant to s 43(3)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), in the sum of $3,200. 8 I am satisfied that this is a reasonable sum and will make an order in terms of the short minutes. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour.