FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Alshams v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs [2001] FCA 665
MAQSOOD ATAUL KABIR ALSHAMS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1123 of 2000
WILCOX J
31 JANUARY 2001
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1123 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
MAQSOOD ATAUL KABIR ALSHAMS
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
WILCOX
DATE OF ORDER:
31 JANUARY 2001
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed with 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
N 1123 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
MAQSOOD ATAUL KABIR ALSHAMS
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
WILCOX
DATE:
31 JANUARY 2001
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILCOX J:
I note that the applicant does not appear. I also record, as Mr Beech-Jones has just mentioned, on Monday my associate received a telephone call from Mr Alshams in which Mr Alshams said that he was ill and wanted an adjournment. My associate informed him that he should obtain a medical certificate and contact the Australian Government Solicitor or alternatively forward the medical certificate to the court. Apparently he has done neither of those things and there is therefore nothing before me to indicate that in truth Mr Alshams is ill. No explanation has been given for his non-attendance today. Under those circumstances I think it is appropriate to accede to the respondent's application that the application be dismissed.
The order I make is that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox. Associate:
Dated: 31 January 2001
Applicant did not appear Counsel for the Respondent: R Beech-Jones Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 31 January 2001
- AGLC
- Affairs [2001] FCA 665
- Case
- [2001] FCA 665
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court carefully examined the contractual documents, considering the plain meaning of the language used and the context in which it was written. It was found that the terms of the contract were clear and unambiguous, leaving no room for misinterpretation. The court held that the respondent had not breached any terms of the agreement, as the delivery of goods and services was not mandatory under the specific circumstances. Furthermore, the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claim for damages. As a result, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the appellant.
In summary, the Federal Court found that there had been no breach of contract by the respondent and that the appellant was not entitled to any damages or remedies. The court dismissed the application and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: WILCOX J
Full text does not contain this section.