Chen Zhen Zi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

[1994] FCA 985

.

JJ THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)

-RICT	REGISTRY	)	No VG 390 of 1994
)

RAL DIVISION	)
BETWEEN:	STEVEN J STAATS

(Applicant)

AND:  SENIOR MEMBER HANDLEY

(First Respondent)

AND:	DIRECTOR-GENERAL, AUSTRALIAN ARCHIVES (Second Respondent)
AND:	DAVID A ROCKEFELLER

(Third Respondent)

AND:  DR M PFATAFORE

(Fourth Respondent)

AND:  DR M A MONTECALVO

(Fifth Respondent)

CORAM:	RYAN J
DATE :	15 NOVEMBER 1994
PLACE :	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

provides : 

RYAN J: By application filed on 3 November 1994 the applicant, Steven J. Staats, seeks an injunction restraining the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from taking any further action in respect of an application by M r Staats to that tribunal, which is numbered V94/680. The jurisdiction of this court which is invoked is s 39B of the Judiciary Act, subsection (1) of which

"The original jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia includes jurisdiction with respect to any matter in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an offrcer or officers of the Commonwealth."

It appears that Mr Staats has before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal three applications, that numbered V94/680 and two others, V94/635 and V94/585, all seeking a review of decisions made by the Director General, Australian =chives. The application V94/680 apparently involves an application for an extension of time within which to commence proceedings. Although notified on 19 August 1994 that the hearing of that application would occur on 5 September 1994, Mr Staats did not appear on the hearing.

After a hearing occupying some 50 minutes the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Senior Member Handley adjourned the application sine die with a direction that M r Staats be called on to show cause why the application should not be dismissed. Accordingly, the senior member's associate wrote to Mr Staats on 7 September 1994 a letter which included the

following paragraphs:

This applicat~on was princ~pally listed on 5 September. Mr Banks

advised the tribunal consistent with the affidavit of Mr Jolly that you sought access to documents for which a thorough search has been conducted by the respondent and from which only 14 relevant documents have been identified. The tribunal was informed that those documents have been forwarded to you. Mr Jolly also gave sworn evidence that only the 14 documents released to you have been identified and a further search was conducted of the respondent's records on 2 September.

That search, however, did not disclose the existence of any other documents. The respondent accordingly objects to time being extended for you to lodge proceedings because the application has no merit. That is to say that any application to the tribunal to have documents released so far as is legally permissible under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation legislation and the Australian Archives legislation has already been disclosed and released to you.

Having regard t o the above, it is requested that you not i fy the tribunal within seven days of your rntention t o proceed with applications ~94/680 and V94/635. I f there is no response from you

within t h i s trme your applicatrons are l i k e l y t o be dismissed. I f you

have any queries please do not hes i ta te t o contact m e on 282 8465."

After informing the tribunal that he definitely wished to proceed with the application V94/680, M r Staats was requested by letter dated 29 September 1994 to file written submissions in respect of his application within 10 days. He complied with that request by letter dated 7 October 1994. After requesting advice by letter dated 27 October 1994 about his earlier communications regarding a further hearing, Mr Staats was advised by telephone by Senior Member Handley's Associate that directions hearings have been listed for all of his applications on 28 November 1994, except for the application V94/680 in which reasons for decision were being prepared.

Since the institution of these proceedings Senior Member Handley has advised the court through Mr Santospirito that he would not publish those reasons until the views of this Court became known and would abide any order which the court might make. Further,	by letter dated 4 November 1994, Mr Gawne, the district registrar	of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, advised Mr Staats that
no action would take place as to the delivery of written reasons for a decision in application number V94/680 until the Federal Court had considered the matter. Mr Gawne further informed Mr Staats that none of his other matters would be listed for directions.
I can discern nothing by way of error of law or procedural
unfairness in the facts just summarised which presently entitles
Mr Staats to an injunction against Senior Member Handley, who is
concededly an officer of the Commonwealth. The jurisdiction of this court to entertain so-called appeals from decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is confinedby sub-section 4 4 ( 1 ) , of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to questions of law.
Mr Staats must therefore await the hearing and determination of
his various applications by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal itself. Onlyif those determinations disclose some identifiable, arguable error of law can he invoke the jurisdiction of this court. For these reasons the application dated 3 November must be dismissed. I will order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application.

I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his Honour Justise Ryan

Associate: U A/'d

Date :  I L. W [‘l9 9