Applicant S254 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal

Case [2003] FCA 1197

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S254 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1197

APPLICANT S254 OF 2002 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N262 OF 2003

EMMETT J
6 JUNE 2003
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N262 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S254 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

N262 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S254 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 of Australia 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, who filed notice of withdrawal of solicitor and affidavit in support on 24 April 2003.  The solicitor’s affidavit discloses that the last address that the applicant known to the solicitor is 33 Foreshaw Avenue, Griffith, New South Wales.  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 6/61 Canal Street, Griffith, New South Wales.

  2. The matter came before me for directions on 2 May 2003 when there was no appearance for the applicant.  On 9 May 2003, I stood the matter over for directions today.  On 20 May 2003, the Minister’s solicitor wrote to the applicant at the two addresses to which I have referred, notifying the applicant of the directions hearing fixed for today and the need for representation on his behalf.  The solicitor for the Minister informs me that those letters have recently been returned undelivered.  When the matter was called today, there was no appearance for the applicant today.  The Minister therefore asks for an order for summary dismissal of the proceeding pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules. 

  3. In the circumstances, it appears to me to be appropriate to make such an order.

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: 6 June 2003
Date of Judgment: 6 June 2003
Details
AGLC
Applicant S254 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1197
Case
[2003] FCA 1197
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Applicant S254 of 2002 sought judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had dismissed an application for a protection visa. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant challenged the Tribunal’s conclusion that he was not a refugee, arguing that the Tribunal had misapplied the law and failed to properly consider relevant evidence.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and whether it was open to the Tribunal to reach the conclusion it did. The key issues involved the interpretation of the relevant legislation and the standard of review applicable to the Tribunal's decision. The court had to consider whether the Tribunal had made an error of law, whether it had failed to consider relevant evidence, or whether the decision was otherwise legally flawed.

The court examined the relevant legislative provisions and the principles of judicial review, finding that the Tribunal had correctly applied the law and had considered the evidence properly. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was open to it and that there was no error of law. The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent and the second respondent was directed to notify the applicant of the court's 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.