Addarage v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 222

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Addarage v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 222

PREETHI VIRAJ JAYARUK ADDARAGE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NG 607 OF 1998

WHITLAM J
5 FEBRUARY 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 607 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

PREETHI VIRAJ JAYARUK ADDARAGE

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

WHITLAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 FEBRUARY 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 607 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

PREETHI VIRAJ JAYARUK ADDARAGE

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	5 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The application was filed on 19 June 1998 and given a first return date on 24 July 1998.  On that date the applicant appeared in person.  Lindgren J gave directions with respect to the filing of documents and ordered that the matter be fixed for hearing on a date to be advised.  The matter was placed in a list to be called over by O’Connor J on 30 October 1998.  Prior to the callover the applicant evidently contacted O'Connor J’s chambers, saying that he was too ill to attend, and the matter was removed from the list.  I arranged to have the matter re-listed before me on 17 December 1998.  The applicant appeared and I fixed the matter for hearing today. 

2. When the matter was called on for hearing, the applicant made reference to the fact that he was unrepresented and that he wished to be represented by a lawyer.  I interpreted this as an application for an adjournment and inquired of the applicant how long he would require in order to obtain a lawyer.  The applicant said that although he had been out of work, he had in fact retained a lawyer.  However that lawyer, who was not named by the applicant, had apparently demanded a sum of money to appear today.  These statements were made by the applicant from the bar table and not on oath.  The applicant also said that he thought he would be able to get some money together and perhaps obtain representation within about four months.  Accepting what he said at face value, I formed the view that there was no realistic prospect of the applicant being able to afford the services of a lawyer.  The application for an adjournment of several months was opposed by counsel for the respondent and, in the circumstances, I refused the application.  This left the applicant in the unfortunate situation where he had to conduct his case himself.

3. The application, as filed, states the grounds of the application to be those specified in s 476(1)(a) and (e) of the Migration Act 1958. In his address, however, the applicant did not refer to any relevant matters arising under those grounds.  The particulars notified in the application are opaque and unhelpful.  Today the applicant has simply said, over and over, that what he told the Department and the Tribunal in his submissions and evidence was true.

4. Counsel for the respondent has prepared a very helpful outline of submissions comprising some thirteen pages.  Conscious that the applicant is unrepresented, I have carefully read the decision of the Tribunal in the light of those submissions.  I accept those submissions in their entirety, and I am fortified by their helpful and comprehensive nature in my view that no case for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision has been made out.  The application will be dismissed.  The applicant should pay the respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.

Associate:

Dated:             5 February 1999

Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the respondent:	A F Backman
Solicitor for the respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing:	5 February 1999
Date of judgment:	5 February 1999