FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant S77/2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1604
APPLICANT S77/2002 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR
N223 OF 2003
EMMETT J
27 OCTOBER 2003
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N223 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT S77/2002
APPLICANTAND:
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENTMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 OCTOBER 2003
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. the application be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules;
2. the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs.
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
N223 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT S77/2002
APPLICANTAND:
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENTMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
27 OCTOBER 2003
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 18 March 2002, the applicant commenced a proceeding in the High Court of Australia seeking prerogative writ relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. On 6 February 2003, Gaudron J remitted the proceeding to this Court. At that stage, the applicant was represented by Adrian Joel & Co, solicitors. On 17 October 2003, those solicitors filed a Notice of Withdrawal from acting in the proceeding.
In the meantime, on 6 June 2003, the applicant departed Australia. When the matter was called for hearing today there was no appearance by the applicant. The second respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, therefore seeks an order that the proceeding be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to accede to that request.
Accordingly, I propose to order that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the second 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 Justice Emmett. Associate:
Dated: 22 January 2004
Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 27 October 2003 Date of Judgment: 27 October 2003
- AGLC
- Applicant S77/2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1604
- Case
- [2003] FCA 1604
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the Court had to address were whether the Tribunal correctly applied the law in assessing the applicant's claims and whether the Tribunal's decision was based on errors of law. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the Tribunal properly assessed the credibility of the applicant's evidence, whether it correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Migration Act, and if the decision was supported by substantial evidence.
The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was correct and that no error of law was evident. The Court found that the Tribunal had appropriately evaluated the applicant's evidence and applied the relevant legal principles. The Court was satisfied that the Tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence presented and that there were no material errors in the decision-making process. As a result, the Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. the application be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules;
2. the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs.
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: EMMETT J
Full text does not contain this section.