FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant S1599/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1607
APPLICANT S1599/2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR
N1414 OF 2003
EMMETT J
27 OCTOBER 2003
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N1414 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT S1599/2003
APPLICANTAND:
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENTMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 OCTOBER 2003
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. the application be dismissed;
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
N1414 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT S1599/2003
APPLICANTAND:
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENTMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
27 OCTOBER 2003
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 29 May 2003, a draft order nisi and affidavit were filed in the High Court of Australia, purportedly on behalf of the applicant. At that stage, the applicant was represented by Adrian Joel & Co, solicitors. However, the applicant voluntarily departed Australia on 10 April 2003. When the matter was called today, Mr Zipser of counsel, instructed by Adrian Joel & Co, appeared indicating that Adrian Joel & Co proposed to write to the applicant at his last known address seeking either instructions or indicating an intention to withdraw.
In the circumstances, there does not seem to be any point in that step being taken. It is appropriate that the matter no longer remain on the record. Accordingly, I propose to order that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.
Associate:
Dated: 22 January 2004
Counsel for the Applicant:
B M Zipser
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Adrien Joel & Co
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:
27 October 2003
Date of Judgment:
27 October 2003
- AGLC
- Applicant S1599/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1607
- Case
- [2003] FCA 1607
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied the applicable legislation in dismissing the applicant's protection visa application. The applicant contended that the tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the law, particularly in relation to the concept of "fear of persecution" as defined in the legislation. The tribunal, on the other hand, maintained that it had correctly applied the law and that the applicant's claim did not meet the threshold for a protection visa.
The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and considered the applicable legislative framework. The court held that the tribunal had properly interpreted and applied the law in dismissing the applicant's protection visa application. The court found no error in the tribunal's reasoning and concluded that the tribunal's decision was legally sound. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. the application be dismissed;
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: EMMETT J
Full text does not contain this section.