Applicant S498 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 1424


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
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

MS PHILIPPA MCINTOSH, MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

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
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

MS PHILIPPA MCINTOSH, MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE:

28 OCTOBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant in this matter, being an application for constitutional and statutory writs (originally made to the High Court) was remitted to this Court by Heydon J on 6 February 2004.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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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. 

  4. 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
Details
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

Applicant S498 of 2003 brought an application against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, a non-citizen, sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to refuse his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed that the Minister had failed to consider all relevant material, thereby making an error of law in the decision-making process.

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

ALLSOP J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: ALLSOP J

Full text does not contain this section.