Applicant S432 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 1375

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S432 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1375

APPLICANT S432 OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1359 of 2004

WILCOX ACJ
13 OCTOBER 2004
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1359 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S432 of 2002
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX ACJ

DATE OF ORDER:

13 OCTOBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The objection to competency be upheld and the purported appeal be dismissed. 

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

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 1359 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S432 of 2002
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX ACJ

DATE:

13 OCTOBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX ACJ:

  1. On 17 September 2004, the applicant filed a notice of appeal against a decision of Allsop J given on 1 September 2004. The order made by Allsop J was an order to dismiss the applicant's application for an order nisi. That was an interlocutory order, so leave to appeal was necessary under s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). No leave was granted. The solicitor for the respondent filed a notice of objection to competency on the ground that leave to appeal has not been granted. This objection is well taken.

  2. In refusing an order nisi, Allsop J was strongly influenced by the fact that this proceeding is an attempt to re-litigate a previous unsuccessful challenge to the relevant decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  He held, and I agree, that the Court should not countenance parties attempting to re-litigate matters already finally determined.

  3. Accordingly, I uphold the objection to competency and order that the purported appeal be dismissed.  The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             29 October 2004

The Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter.
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr B Rayment, Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 13 October 2004
Date of Judgment: 13 October 2004
Details
AGLC
Applicant S432 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1375
Case
[2004] FCA 1375
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Applicant S432 of 2002, the applicant contested a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, which was to remove the applicant from Australia. The applicant, who was a non-citizen, argued that the decision was flawed and should be overturned. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the court was required to determine whether the applicant's appeal was valid and whether the decision by the Minister was lawful.

The central issue in this case was whether the applicant's appeal was valid and whether the court had jurisdiction to hear it. The Minister argued that the applicant's appeal was not valid as it was not lodged within the required time frame and did not meet the necessary requirements. The applicant, on the other hand, argued that the appeal was valid and that the Minister's decision was flawed. The court had to determine whether the applicant's appeal was valid and whether it had the power to hear the appeal.

The court found that the applicant's appeal was not valid as it was not lodged within the required time frame and did not meet the necessary requirements. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were any errors in the decision-making process that would warrant the court to intervene. The court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and that the applicant's appeal was incompetent. The court dismissed the applicant's objection to the competency of the appeal and held that the purported appeal was invalid.

The court ordered that the objection to the competency of the appeal be upheld and that the purported appeal be dismissed. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The objection to competency be upheld and the purported appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

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

WILCOX ACJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WILCOX ACJ

Full text does not contain this section.