Applicant S220 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal

Case [2003] FCA 1199

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S220 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1199

APPLICANT S220 OF 2002 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N256 OF 2003

EMMETT J
6 JUNE 2003
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N256 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S220 OF 2002
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 JUNE 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

3.the second respondent notify the applicant at his last known address of these Orders and the terms of O 35 r 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.

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

N256 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S220 OF 2002
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

6 JUNE 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This matter was commenced in the High Court and remitted to this Court by order of Gaudron J on 6 February 2003.  At that stage, the applicant was represented by Adrian Joel & Co, solicitors.  On 24 April 2003, Adrian Joel & Co filed a notice of withdrawal of solicitor and an affidavit in support.  That affidavit disclosed the latest address of the applicant known to the solicitor, being 9/60 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.  On 28 April 2003, the solicitor for the second respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister), was informed by an officer of the Minister’s  department that the most recent address held by the Department for the applicant was 5/252 Gardiners Road, Eastlakes. 

  2. The matter was before me for directions on 2 May 2003 when there was no appearance for the applicant.  On 9 May 2003, I directed that the matter be adjourned for further directions today.  On 20 May 2003, the Minister’s solicitor wrote to the applicant at the two addresses to which I have referred.  The letter addressed to 5/252 Gardeners Road, Eastlakes was returned, by post, undelivered.  When the matter was called on for hearing today, there was no appearance for the applicant and the Minister asks for orders for summary dismissal of the proceeding pursuant to O 10 r 3 of the Federal Court Rules.  In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to make such orders.

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:             29 October 2003

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 6 June 2003
Date of Judgment: 6 June 2003
Details
AGLC
Applicant S220 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1199
Case
[2003] FCA 1199
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, S220 of 2002, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal which had affirmed the decision of a delegate to refuse him refugee status. The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the evidence before it and that its decision was otherwise unlawful. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary issue for the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in its decision-making process, specifically whether it had failed to properly consider the applicant’s evidence. The court also had to determine whether the Tribunal’s decision was otherwise unlawful. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had not properly weighed up the evidence and had failed to take into account his credibility.

The court found that the Tribunal had considered all of the evidence before it and had properly evaluated the applicant’s credibility. The court held that the Tribunal’s decision was not unlawful and that there was no basis for the applicant’s claim for judicial review. The court found that the application was an abuse of process and dismissed it pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the second respondent’s costs and that the second respondent notify the applicant at his last known address of these Orders and the terms of O 35 r 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.

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

3. the second respondent notify the applicant at his last known address of these Orders and the terms of O 35 r 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.

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.