FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant S1226 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 578
APPLICANT S1226 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N252 of 2004
JACOBSON J
SYDNEY
4 MAY 2004
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N252 of 2004
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT S1226 of 2003
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal be refused.
2.That 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
N252 of 2004
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT S1226 of 2003
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE:
4 MAY 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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 2003v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 577.
The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the application for leave to appeal. The affidavit states only that the applicant is not familiar with the procedures of the Federal Court and is not happy with the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”).
The applicant appeared before me this morning in person. He said that he had produced an affidavit of 27 February 2004 and that the affidavit contains all that he wants to say.
There is nothing in the affidavit and nothing has been put to me this morning 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. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused.
The order that I will make is that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.
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:
Date: 4 May 2004
Applicant self represented Counsel for the Respondent: J D Harris SC Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 4 May 2004 Date of Judgment: 4 May 2004
- AGLC
- Applicant S1226 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 578
- Case
- [2004] FCA 578
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court analysed the Minister's decision in light of the statutory obligations and the principles of natural justice. It found that the Minister had indeed considered the relevant materials and had provided adequate reasons for the decision. The Court held that the Minister's decision was not flawed and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. The Court concluded that there was no basis to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the application. The Court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to appeal be refused.
2. That the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: JACOBSON J
Full text does not contain this section.