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 2003WILCOX 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
APPLICANTAND:
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENTMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
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
APPLICANTAND:
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENTMINISTER 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
- AGLC
- Applicant S259 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1431
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1431
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Subrule (1) of Order 51A rule 5 not apply to this application.
2. The application for an order nisi be refused.
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: WILCOX J
Full text does not contain this section.