Caffoor v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 750

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Caffoor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 750

UBAIDOOR RILWAN ABDUL CAFFOOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 230 OF 2000

HELY J
12 MAY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 230 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	UBAIDOOR RILWAN ABDUL CAFFOOR APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 MAY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed with costs.

2.The respondent is directed to give notice in writing to the applicant of the terms of this order and of the terms of Order 35, rule 7(2)(e) by letter sent to his address for service on or before Monday 15 May 2000.

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 230 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	UBAIDOOR RILWAN ABDUL CAFFOOR APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE:	12 MAY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 30 March 2000, this matter was listed before Registrar Segal, when he fixed the matter for hearing today.  On that occasion, the applicant was represented by Mr Craig Colborne, a barrister, who was mentioning the matter for Mr Cameron Jackson, who was recorded as having held a direct access brief from the applicant.

2. When the matter came on for hearing this morning, there was no appearance for the applicant.  Mr Markus, who appears for the respondent, informed me of a conversation which he had with Mr Jackson, in which Mr Jackson stated that he was no longer instructed by the applicant.  He did, however, state that the applicant was aware of the hearing date.  There is no reason to assume that Mr Jackson would not have informed the applicant of the date fixed for hearing, although unless I hear from the applicant in that respect, that it is always a theoretical possibility.

3. The application for an order of review, although specifying what are said to be grounds of the application, provides no particularity in relation to those grounds.  I have read the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which was adverse to the applicant, entirely because of adverse findings as to the applicant's credibility.  I have had the benefit of reading an outline of the respondent's submissions and a consideration of that outline, as well as a consideration of the terms of the decision of the Tribunal, indicate to say the least, that the applicant would have the job ahead of him in establishing any of the grounds which are referred to in that application.

4. In those circumstances, I think it is proper that I should accede to Mr Markus's request that I make an order under Order 32, rule 2(1)(c) dismissing the application with costs.  I therefore dismiss the application with costs.  I direct the respondent to give notice in writing to the applicant of the terms of this order and of the terms of Order 35, rule 7(2)(e) by letter sent to his address for service on or before Monday 15 May 2000.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.

Associate:

Dated:            7 June 2000

No appearance by the applicant
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	12 May 2000
Date of Judgment:	12 May 2000