Applicant S 1280 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case •

[2004] FCA 599

•

4 MAY 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S 1280 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 599

APPLICANT S 1280 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N253 of 2004

JACOBSON J
4 MAY 2004
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 253 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S 1280 of 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MAY 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties. 

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 253 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S 1280 of 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

4 MAY 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is one of six applications for leave to appeal against the judgment of Emmett J given on 20 February 2004 refusing to grant an order nisi.  The relevant background to the proceedings and the reasons why his Honour refused to make an order nisi are referred to in my judgment in the matter of Applicant S1198 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 577.

  2. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the application for leave to appeal.  The affidavit states that the applicant is not satisfied as to why his application was dismissed. 

  3. The applicant appeared before me this morning in person.  He said that he was not satisfied with the rejection of his case by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “RRT”) because he has political problems in Bangladesh.  He told me that he wants a review of his case and that he explained his case to the RRT.  He thinks that the RRT was wrong.  As I told him this morning I cannot review the merits of his case in this application.

  4. Nothing has been put to me either in the applicant's affidavit or orally to suggest that there is any doubt about the correctness of his Honour's judgment.  I am satisfied that no injustice would be caused by refusing leave. 

  5. Accordingly the order I will make is that the application for leave to appeal be  dismissed.  The order that I will make as to costs is that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Dated:            4 May 2004

Applicant self represented
Counsel for the Respondent: J D Harris SC
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 4 May 2004
Date of Judgment: 4 May 2004
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0