FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant S498 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1424
APPLICANT S498 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ORS
NSD 555 of 2004
ALLSOP J
28 OCTOBER 2004
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 555 of 2004
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT S498 of 2003
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTPRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENTMS PHILIPPA MCINTOSH, MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENTJUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 OCTOBER 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $3,000.
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 555 of 2004
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT S498 of 2003
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTPRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENTMS PHILIPPA MCINTOSH, MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE:
28 OCTOBER 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant in this matter, being an application for constitutional and statutory writs (originally made to the High Court) was remitted to this Court by Heydon J on 6 February 2004. The matter was set down for hearing today at 11.30 a.m. before me. The affidavit of the employee of Blake Dawson Waldron, Mr Benjamin Alexander Cramer, makes clear that the applicant was served with the directions and the orders setting the matter down for hearing today. It also makes clear that he has left the country. No communication has been received from, and no application has been made by, the applicant to adjourn this matter.
The matter was called on at 11.30 a.m. and later at 12.15 p.m. There being no appearance I dismiss the application in those circumstances for want of prosecution and by reason of the absence of the applicant. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.
Mr Cramer makes application that I identify the amount of costs in respect of the order. I think that is appropriate to avoid any further expense in this matter. Solicitor-client costs, I am prepared to accept from the Bar table for these proceedings and for the High Court proceedings will be in the order of $4,500 and counsel's fees will be in the order of $1,500. It is sought that I make an order for fixing the costs at $3,000. I think that is a fair estimate of appropriate costs in all the circumstances.
Thus, the orders I make are the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $3,000.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop . Associate:
Dated: 3 November 2004
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr B Cramer (Slr) Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 28 October 2004 Date of Judgment: 28 October 2004
- AGLC
- Applicant S498 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1424
- Case
- [2004] FCA 1424
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister had erred in law by failing to consider all relevant material in the decision to refuse the applicant's protection visa application. The court needed to determine whether the Minister's decision-making process complied with the Migration Act 1958 and if the failure to consider certain material constituted an error of law. The applicant argued that the Minister had overlooked evidence that was critical to his claim for protection.
The court found that the Minister had indeed failed to consider some relevant material, but this did not amount to an error of law sufficient to invalidate the decision. The court held that the errors in the decision-making process were not so significant as to render the decision unlawful. The court reasoned that the Minister's failure to consider certain material did not deprive the applicant of a fair opportunity to respond to the issues raised in the decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $3,000.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $3,000.
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: ALLSOP J
Full text does not contain this section.