Costs to follow practicable outcome, although proceedings became otiose?

Federal Court. As the decision that the applicant sought to compel by mandamus was made favourably to him, with the result that he obtained the practical outcome he pursued, should he be awarded costs? If so, should those costs be offset by costs which the applicant was awarded to pay in a previous court proceeding?

The Federal Court (FCA) described the case as follows:

3    On 16 March 2021, while in detention, the applicant made an application for a protection visa. The application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent (the Minister) on 14 July 2022. However, on 20 October 2022 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) set aside that decision. It remitted the matter to the Minister with a direction that the applicant satisfied the criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). When he commenced the proceeding (around 18 months after the Tribunal’sdecision), the applicant was still waiting to hear from the Minister’s department as to the progress of his visa application.

4    The applicant sought:

(a)    an order in the nature of habeas corpus, requiring his release from detention; and

(b)    mandamus to require the Minister to perform the duty under s 65 of the Act to make a decision on his visa application; and

(c)    declarations of the unlawfulness of his detention and of its unlawfulness since a date in the past to be determined by the Court.

On 1 May 2024, while the FCA proceeding was still on foot, the applicant was granted a protection visa and released from detention. This rendered the final relief sought in the FCA proceeding otiose/moot.

Some of the questions to the FCA were as follows:

Question 1: As the decision that the applicant sought to compel by mandamus was made favourably to him, with the result that he obtained the practical outcome he pursued, should he be awarded costs?

Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is 'yes', should those costs be offset by costs which the applicant was awarded to pay in a previous court proceeding?

The FCA answered those questions as follows:

The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.

Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:

Monthly Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
-
$ 29 /month
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
-
$ 49 / month
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 9 / month
$ 69 / month
Subscribe

Annual Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
Save $ 49 / year
$ 299 / year
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
Save $ 89 / year
$ 499 / year
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 237 / year
$ 699 / year
Subscribe

 

Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.

Content Types

Basic Content includes basic news, some media articles and selected announcements.

Premium Content includes all our content, except for Case Law Content. In other words, it includes Basic Content, plus all our articles on legislative and policy changes, industry updates and the Migration Legislation Tracker.

Case Law Content includes Basic Content, plus case law summaries, analysis and extract, but does not include Premium Content.

Platinum Content includes Basic Content, plus Premium Content, plus Case Law Content. In other words, it includes ALL our content.

If you already have a Case Law or Platinum subscription, click on 'Login' below.

Previous articleCan impact on victims weigh in favour of non-citizen?
Next articleStatus of forces agreement