Azarcon v Refugee Review Tribunal

[2002] FCA 635

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Azarcon v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] FCA 635

HERMENIA AZARCON v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

N 237 of 2002

WHITLAM J
10 MAY 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 237 of 2002

BETWEEN:	HERMENIA AZARCON APPLICANT
AND:	REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 MAY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The proceeding is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the 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	N 237 of 2002

BETWEEN:	HERMENIA AZARCON APPLICANT
AND:	REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	10 MAY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the respondent for an order for dismissal pursuant to O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules.  The proceeding purports to be an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). 

2. The subject decision was given on 27 February 2002.  The Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision refusing to grant access to documents requested by the applicant under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.  The Tribunal was satisfied that the documents did not exist.  That is, of course, a finding of fact.

3. The notice filed by the applicant to institute this proceeding states no question of law to be raised on the appeal and no such question has been suggested by the evidence admitted or arguments made on the hearing of the present motion. It is an alleged error of law which founds an appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.  That is the basis upon which jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court: Allan v Transurban City Link Ltd (2001) 75 ALJR 1551 at 1554.

4. In relation to this proceeding, therefore, no reasonable basis for the appeal is disclosed.  I am conscious of the exceptional caution with which the power to order summary dismissal must be exercised: see General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129. Nonetheless the applicant's purported appeal is utterly hopeless and foredoomed to failure.

5. The proceeding is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.

Associate:

Dated:             16 May 2002

The applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the respondent:	Mr G J Peek of Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing:	10 May 2002
Date of judgment:	10 May 2002