Ahouidak, Adnane v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (No 2)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) Not for general Distribution

)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )   NG 951 of 1996
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )
BETWEEN:  ADNANE AHOUIDAK

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: Moore J

PLACE: Sydney

DATE: 4 September 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application to adjourn is dismissed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )  Not for General Distribution
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )  No. NG 951 of 1996
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

BETWEEN: ADNANE AHOUIDAK

Applicant

AND:MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: Moore J

PLACE: Sydney

DATE: 4 September 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(delivered ex tempore)

An application has been made today to adjourn again the hearing of the matter which was fixed for hearing when the matter was last before me on 4 August 1997. The matter had been set down for hearing on that day and an application was made by Mr Sarroff that the hearing date be vacated. That application was based on both the personal circumstances of Mr Sarroff, namely, that he had been ill for some time prior to that hearing date, and the circumstances of his client who also had been ill. I granted the adjournment but I made it plain that I expected the matter to proceed to trial on the date set, namely, 4 September 1997 and that the procedural steps that I then directed take place would in fact be done.

As it transpires, the steps ordered to be undertaken were not undertaken and it would appear, at least on one view, the matter is not in a position to be heard today. If so, that appears to be entirely attributable to the applicant. The reason advanced for the adjournment today is the health of the applicant. Mr Sarroff has tendered on his behalf a medical certificate of a Dr Sachar dated yesterday, it records that the applicant is suffering from a heart condition and the doctor has expressed the view and I quote, "I feel that the stress caused by a court appearance may initiate something more serious." Reliance is also placed on the medical certificate of Dr Pitney tendered on the last occasion.

The proceedings themselves involve the judicial review of a decision made under the Migration Act (1958). While in the ordinary course the court should strive to ensure that an applicant is able to hear personally any case put on his or her behalf and any arguments and submissions put against that case. The history of this matter would suggest to me that the inability of the applicant to attend today is an insufficient reason to adjourn yet again the matter and to vacate yet again a hearing date fixed for the hearing of the matter.

In those circumstances I do not propose to accede to the request that the matter be adjourned and the hearing of the matter will proceed.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated: 4 September 1997

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr J Sarroff of John Sarroff & Co

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr RT Beech-Jones

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing: 4 September 1997

Adnane Ahouidak filed an application against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking to have a decision reviewed under the Migration Act. The matter was set for hearing on 4 August 1997, but an adjournment was granted due to the applicant and his solicitor being unwell. The court expected the matter to proceed on 4 September 1997, but this did not occur as the required procedural steps were not undertaken. The applicant sought another adjournment based on his health, presenting a medical certificate indicating a heart condition and stress from a court appearance. The court, however, found that the applicant's inability to attend was insufficient reason to adjourn the matter again, considering the history of the case.

The court had to decide whether to grant another adjournment due to the applicant's health issues or proceed with the hearing as scheduled. The key legal issue was whether the applicant's health concerns were valid enough to warrant another postponement. The court also had to consider the procedural requirements and the impact of repeated adjournments on the efficiency of the court's proceedings.

The court determined that the applicant's health issues were not sufficient grounds for another adjournment, especially given the history of the matter and the failure to complete the necessary procedural steps. Justice Moore concluded that the applicant's inability to attend was largely attributable to his own circumstances and that repeated adjournments were not in the interest of judicial efficiency. The court ordered that the application to adjourn be dismissed and that the hearing proceed as scheduled on 4 September 1997.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established