Applicant M30 of 2004 v MIMIA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 385

[2007] HCATrans 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M66 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT M30 OF 2004

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 2 AUGUST 2007, AT 9.40 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who claims to fear persecution including damage to his business arising out of his involvement in the United National Party.  In 2001, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the refusal of a delegate of the respondent Minister to issue a protection visa.  While the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was a longstanding supporter of the UNP, it did not accept all of his claims, and was not satisfied that there was a real chance that he would face persecution.  

On 17 February 2004, the applicant commenced proceedings in the original jurisdiction of this Court seeking review of the Tribunal's decision.  On 13 July 2004, that matter was remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court.  The matter then came before McInnis FM on 6 October 2005, who dismissed the application with costs.  Neither the applicant nor his legal representatives appeared at that hearing.

The applicant then applied to McInnis FM to set aside the order of 6 October 2005. That application was dismissed with costs on 20 December 2005. Aside from the inadequacy of the applicant's explanations for his non‑attendance, McInnis FM found that the Tribunal had committed no error and had not denied the applicant procedural fairness.

The applicant then purported to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. Weinberg J treated the matter as an application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory order of McInnis FM, and dismissed that application with costs on 2 May 2006, as neither the Tribunal nor the Federal Magistrate had committed any error.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused with costs.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave with costs and I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.42 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED