Chand v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 382

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chand v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 382

RAKESH CHAND v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NG 978 of 1998

LINDGREN J
25 MARCH 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 978 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	RAKESH CHAND Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	25 MARCH 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(application for adjournment)

(ex tempore)

1. The applicant (“Mr Chand”) applies for an adjournment.  I refuse the application.  The hearing has already been adjourned once, on 15 February, on the application of Mr Chand.  On that occasion, a medical certificate was supplied.

2. The present application is based on Mr Chand's wish to have Mr Khalsa, a migration agent, represent him.  Mr Chand filed an affidavit yesterday in which he states that Mr Khalsa had assisted him when he, Mr Chand, lodged his initial application commencing this proceeding back in September 1998 and that he, Mr Chand, had been handling the matter by himself because he could not afford the barrister's fee which Mr Khalsa said he would have to pay.

3. Mr Chand states in his affidavit that he has now found that representing himself is beyond his ability and that he contacted Mr Khalsa "last week" to see if he could again assist him.  Thus, the picture portrayed by the affidavit is that only a week ago did Mr Chand seek Mr Khalsa's assistance to prepare for the hearing today. This itself militates against an adjournment. But there is more as will appear below.  The affidavit goes on to say that Mr Khalsa cannot appear today because he, Mr Khalsa, is "doing a migration course on 25 and 26 March 1999".  Mr Chand's affidavit states that Mr Chand contacted another migration agent who said that he could arrange for a solicitor but that this would cost Mr Chand about $6,000 and that there was not sufficient time before the hearing.

4. According to Mr Chand’s affidavit, Mr Khalsa is to travel overseas this Friday, 27 March and to return on 24 April but Mr Khalsa cannot take the case until after 3 May as he will be very busy following his return.  Mr Chand says he would like Mr Khalsa to assist him.

5. I asked Mr Chand whether Mr Khalsa was to appear for him on the last occasion, when the adjournment took place on medical grounds. Mr Chand replied that Mr Khalsa was to appear for him on that occasion.  Mr Chand’s reply is inconsistent with his affidavit which, as noted above, states that Mr Chand has been trying to handle the matter himself until he came to appreciate only a week ago that he would have to return to Mr Khalsa for help.  The picture portrayed by the affidavit is that Mr Khalsa helped Mr Chand back in September but that since that time Mr Chand has been self represented.

6. All things considered, particularly the earlier adjournment, the lateness of the present application and the unconvincing nature of the case made for a further adjournment, I refuse the application for adjournment. The case will now proceed to hearing.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.

Associate:

Dated:             25 March 1999

The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	The Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	25 March 1999
Date of Judgment:	25 March 1999