Applicant M1 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs - [2005] FCA 469

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant M1 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 469
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — application for leave to appeal interlocutory judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court — Federal Magistrates Court dismissed an application to reinstate a proceeding — leave to appeal refused
MIGRATION — failure to appear in Federal Magistrates Court — no adequate explanation offered — no evidence that appearing would have changed outcome — no arguable case for review
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1A)
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1967 art 1A(2)
Evangelista v CPS Credit Union (SA) Ltd [2005] FCA 345 cited
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 applied
APPLICANT M1 of 2004 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
V199 of 2005
MERKEL J
22 APRIL 2005
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V199 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT M1 of 2004
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MERKEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 APRIL 2005

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court refusing the application for reinstatement of the proceeding is refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to this application for leave.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V199 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT M1 of 2004
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MERKEL J

DATE:

22 APRIL 2005

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant is a Sri Lankan national who arrived in Australia on 6 January 2003. On the following day he applied for a protection visa on the basis that he is a refugee as defined by art 1A(2) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1967 (“the Convention”). The applicant claims to be a refugee because he has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason if he were to return to Sri Lanka.
A delegate of the respondent Minister refused the applicant’s protection visa application, and that refusal was later affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”). The applicant then commenced proceedings in the High Court. Those proceedings were remitted by the High Court to this Court, and were then transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court (“the FMC”). Both the applicant and the Minister were notified in writing by the Registry of the FMC that the matter had been listed for hearing at 10:15am on 16 February 2005. When the matter came on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Applicant M1 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicul...

Details

AGLC: Applicant M1 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 469
Case: [2005] FCA 469
Decision Date: 22 APRIL 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Applicant M1 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the applicant sought reinstatement of proceedings against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The matter was initially heard in the Federal Magistrates Court, which refused the application for reinstatement. The applicant then sought leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court. The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the procedural aspects of the case, specifically whether the Federal Magistrates Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to reinstate the proceedings, and if the applicant had grounds for an appeal from the interlocutory judgment.

The court examined the grounds upon which the applicant sought leave to appeal, focusing on whether the Federal Magistrates Court had erred in its exercise of discretion. It considered whether the applicant's application for reinstatement was made within a reasonable time, and if the applicant could demonstrate a bona fide reason for the delay. The court also reviewed the merits of the applicant’s case to determine if the reinstatement of proceedings would be in the interests of justice. After careful consideration, the court found that the Federal Magistrates Court had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing the application for reinstatement, and that the applicant had not demonstrated a valid basis for an appeal from the interlocutory judgment.

Accordingly, the court refused the application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, reflecting the absence of merit in the applicant's grounds for appeal. This decision underscores the importance of timely and diligent prosecution of proceedings and the limited circumstances under which an interlocutory judgment may be subject to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court refusing the application for reinstatement of the proceeding is refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to this application for leave.

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

MERKEL J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MERKEL J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V199 of 2005

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT M1 of 2004 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MERKEL J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 APRIL 2005
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V199 of 2005

JUDGE:	MERKEL J
DATE:	22 APRIL 2005
PLACE:	MELBOURNE