Applicant S144 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal

Case [2003] FCA 1202

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S144 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1202

APPLICANT S144 OF 2002 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N247 OF 2003

EMMETT J
15 AUGUST 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N247 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S144 OF 2002
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 AUGUST 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        the application be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules;

2.        the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs.

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

N247 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S144 OF 2002
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

15 AUGUST 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This matter was remitted to this Court by the High Court of Australia by order of Gaudron J on 6 February 2003.  At that stage, the applicant was represented by Adrian Joel & Co, solicitors.  On 14 February 2003, Adrian Joel & Co wrote to the applicant saying that the proceeding had been remitted to the Federal Court and requesting a payment on account of fees.  The solicitors wrote again to the applicant on 12 March 2003 indicating that the earlier letter had not been answered and saying that the solicitors could not continue to act for the applicant if the applicant did not contact the solicitor and provide instructions.  As at 7 April 2003, the applicant had not communicated with Adrian Joel & Co and, on 1 May 2003, Adrian Joel & Co filed a notice of withdrawal of solicitor.

  2. The matter came before me on 2 May 2003, when there was no appearance for the applicant.  On 9 May 2003, I stood over the proceeding for directions on 6 June 2003.  On that day there was no appearance for the applicant and I stood the matter over for further directions today.  There being no appearance for the applicant today, the second respondent moves for dismissal of the proceeding pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules.  I have evidence before me that satisfies me that, on 10 July 2003, the applicant departed Australia. 

  3. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to order, pursuant to O 10 r 3(2), that the application be dismissed with costs. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:             29 October 2003

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 15 August 2003
Date of Judgment: 15 August 2003
Details
AGLC
Applicant S144 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1202
Case
[2003] FCA 1202
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Applicant S144 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal involves the applicant, a non-citizen, appealing against the decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal which had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse the applicant's application for a protection visa. The applicant sought judicial review of these decisions in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in its consideration of the applicant's claims and the evidence presented to support those claims. The court also needed to determine if the Tribunal's decisions were unreasonable or if there were any jurisdictional errors.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the findings and reasoning of the Tribunal, focusing on whether the Tribunal had properly applied the relevant legal standards and correctly interpreted the evidence. The court held that the Tribunal had appropriately considered the applicant's claims and the evidence provided, and that its findings were supported by the material before it. The court found no jurisdictional error and concluded that the Tribunal's decisions were not unreasonable. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the second respondent. This outcome reinforces the principle that the Federal Court will only intervene where there has been a clear error of law or an unreasonable decision by the Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the application be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules;

2. the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs.

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

EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.