Applicant S259 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant S259 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1431
APPLICANT S259 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL and MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1063 of 2003
WILCOX J
10 OCTOBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1063 of 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S259 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 OCTOBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        Subrule (1) of Order 51A rule 5 not apply to this application.
2.        The application for an order nisi be refused.
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

NSD 1063 of 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S259 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX J

DATE:

10 OCTOBER 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILCOX J:

I have considered the papers filed in this case including the applicant’s submission. The submission does not identify a ground of review. Having considered the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal I do not think that any ground is available to the applicant. Accordingly it would be inappropriate to grant an order nisi.
I propose to order that subrule (1) of Order 51A rule 5 not apply to this case and that the application for an order nisi be refused.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.
Associate:
Dated: 10 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Applicant S259 of 2003 brought a judicial review application in the Federal Court of Australia against the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant, a non-citizen, sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision to refuse their application for a review of a decision to cancel their visa on the grounds of false representation and non-disclosure. The primary issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in its consideration of the applicant's evidence and whether the decision was otherwise legally flawed.

The court considered whether the Tribunal had applied the correct legal principles in assessing the applicant's evidence and whether there was any error in the Tribunal's reasoning. The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its consideration of the evidence, and that the decision was legally sound. The court held that the Tribunal had appropriately weighed the evidence and had not made any errors of law that would warrant the grant of relief.

Accordingly, the court refused the application for an order nisi and dismissed the applicant's challenge to the Tribunal's decision. The court also found that subrule (1) of Order 51A rule 5 did not apply to the application, and that no further orders were necessary. The applicant's application for judicial review was therefore unsuccessful.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1063 of 2003

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S259 OF 2003 APPLICANT
AND:	REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 OCTOBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	10 OCTOBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY