AFP21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application by a Malaysian citizen, the applicant, for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming the refusal of his Protection visa. The applicant sought to have the proceeding transferred from the Perth Registry to the Melbourne Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The application was heard by Alstergren CJ.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the applicant's request to transfer the proceeding to the Melbourne Registry. In doing so, the court had to consider the principles outlined in section 52 of the *Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999* (Cth) and rule 8.01 of the Rules, which mandate consideration of the convenience of the parties, the limiting of expense and cost, whether the matter has been listed for final hearing, and any other relevant matters. The court also had regard to the Full Federal Court's guidance in *National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corp* (1988) 19 FCR 155, which emphasised that the ultimate test is where the case can be conducted or continued most suitably, bearing in mind the interests of all parties, the ends of justice, and the efficient administration of the Court.

Alstergren CJ considered the convenience of the parties, noting that while the applicant expressed a preference for Melbourne and indicated a desire to move there, there was no concrete evidence of travel bookings or housing arrangements to confirm his residence in Victoria by the time of the substantive hearing. The court found that transferring the matter to Melbourne would not significantly inconvenience the Minister's solicitor, who was based in Perth, given the early stage of the proceedings. Regarding expense and cost, the court placed no weight on the costs the applicant would incur by travelling to Melbourne, as these were self-imposed. The court also noted that the hearing could proceed remotely, negating any additional expense for the Minister and that the applicant was not prejudiced by remote appearances, as demonstrated by the current hearing conducted via video-link.

Ultimately, Alstergren CJ refused the application to transfer the proceeding to the Melbourne Registry. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the transfer, particularly in light of the ability to conduct the hearing remotely and the applicant's freedom to travel to Melbourne for the hearing if he wished.