Gogo v Attorney-General (Cth) [2022] FCA 70

Federal Court of Australia

Gogo v Attorney-General (Cth) [2022] FCA 70 File numbers: ACD 75 of 2019 ACD 76 of 2019 ACD 77 of 2019 ACD 78 of 2019 ACD 79 of 2019 ACD 80 of 2019 ACD 86 of 2019 ACD 87 of 2019

Judgment of: WIGNEY J

Date of judgment: 9 February 2022

Catchwords: COSTS – interlocutory application seeking costs in relation to judicial review applications – where judicial review applications became otiose and were discontinued and not determined on the merits – relevant principles regarding the Court's discretion to award costs in circumstances where there is no hearing on the merits – whether it was possible, without addressing the merits or resolving disputed factual issues, to determine whether the applicants would almost certainly have succeeded had the applications gone to trial – whether it was possible, without addressing the merits or resolving disputed factual issues, to determine whether the difference in the reasonableness of the actions of the parties in respect of the litigation warranted costs in favour of the applicants – where Court held it was not possible to conclude that applicants would have succeeded in the judicial review applications without considering the merits of the case – where Court held it was not possible to conclude that there was a marked difference in the reasonableness of the actions of the parties to warrant the award of costs to the applicants – no order as to costs

Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 7(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 19AP, 19AL Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 68(2) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 232A, 232A(1) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), ss 140, 140(1)(a)