//
austlii:cth/FedCFamC2G/2025/1022
General information, not legal advice.
FedCFamC2G
2025-07-03
Original judgment source is linked above.
An order for indemnity costs requires that there be some special or unusual feature. Indemnity costs are not punitive, but are designed to compensate a party fully for costs incurred, as a normal costs order (that is, a party and party order) could not be expected to do, when the Court takes the view that it was unreasonable for the party against whom the order is made to have subjected the innocent party to the expenditure of costs...
I certify that the preceding twenty-six (26) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Riley.
GKX18
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
(a) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal found that Australia owed the applicant non-refoulement obligations;
(b) following the High Court's decision in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 97 ALJR 1005; (2023) 415 ALR 254; [2023] HCA 37, the applicant filed an application for habeas corpus;
(c) shortly before court commenced on the second day of the habeas corpus hearing, on 16 October 2024, the respondents advised the court and the applicant that he had been given a Bridging Visa E;
(d) a Bridging Visa E allows a person to stay temporarily in Australia while their immigration status is resolved;
(e) it then emerged that the Bridging Visa E was valid for four months, and was subject to condition 8510;
(f) condition 8510 required the applicant to apply for a passport;
(g) the only passport the applicant could apply for was an Iraqi passport;
(h) at the hearing on 16 October 2024, counsel for the applicant expressed considerable consternation about condition 8510, telling the court that:
9.1 Either the applicant applies for an Iraqi passport and by doing so faces the real risk that the respondents will then argue, as was done in Rezaei v MIMA [2001] FCA 1294, that such an engagement is a re-availing with the persecuting country, and thereby risk losing the benefit of the non-refoulment findings, and potentially then risk being sent back to the country the subject of the nonrefoulement findings, something presently the applicant is protected from because of the non-refoulement findings and NZYQ.
9.2 Or, the applicant chooses to not obey the visa condition and risks being breached, with possible detention of some kind for the breach and/or its possible use in the future to deny any application by the applicant for permanent residency or citizenship.
(1993) 28 IPR 561
(2023) 97 ALJR 1005
(2023) 415 ALR 254
(1987) 10 NSWLR 525
(1993) 46 FCR 225
(1989) 92 ALR 131
(1992) 27 NSWLR 721