Chi, Tong Chun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Case [1997] FCA 692


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )   NG 396 of 1996
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN:              

TONG CHUN CHI
Applicant

  AND:  

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS
First Respondent

JUDGE(S): EMMETT J
PLACE: SYDNEY
DATED: 10 JULY 1997

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This application was brought pursuant to order 54B of the Federal Court Rules, seeking a review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 15 April 1996 affirming the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  When the matter was called for hearing this morning, the solicitor for the Minister indicated that a communication had been received from the applicant in the following terms, and I quote:

“I withdraw my application on the judgment that the subject is quite complicated and ambiguous, subject on the limited passage of the codes [sic].  I judge that I don’t have such power of knowledge to go through the passage [sic].  I truly thank for your assistance, accept sincere apology.”

Having been informed of receipt of that communication I arranged for my associate to speak to the applicant and I am told and have informed the solicitor for the Minister that the applicant confirmed that he did not wish to proceed with his application.  My associate also raised with the applicant the question of costs and indicated that there was a prospect that if the application were not proceeded with, the applicant would be urged to pay the Minister's costs.  The applicant's response was that he had no money and that the filing fees had been waived. 

The Minister now asks that the proceedings be dismissed.  That appears to me to be the appropriate course to adopt.  The reasons for the decision of the Tribunal indicate that the applicant has made quite a number of applications for visas which would entitle him to remain in Australia.  Since 1990 he has made various applications to the Department for residency in Australia.  None of those claims was successful.  Due to the failure of those applications and the failure of the applicant to leave Australia he was notified in December 1992 that his case was being referred to the Minister to obtain an order requiring him to leave Australia.

Shortly thereafter he lodged a refugee status application.  The decision to refuse that application was made on 27 April 1993.  The applicant applied for a review of the decision.  The Tribunal reviewed the application and affirmed the delegate's decision on 31 October 1994.  The applicant then lodged with the Department on 30 November 1994 a second protection visa application, claiming to be a refugee.  That application was refused by the delegate and the applicant applied for review of that decision by the Tribunal on 9 October 1995. It is that application which was the subject of the decision on 12 April 1996.

In its reasons the Tribunal expressed considerable sympathy for the applicant, since he has been outside his country of origin for 30 years.  However the material contained in the reasons for decision indicate that the grounds specified in the application to this court were very unlikely to be made out.  In the absence of any appearance for the applicant today and in the light of the indication by the applicant in the manner to which I have referred that he does not with to pursue the application, I consider that it is appropriate that the application be dismissed.  I also consider that it is appropriate, having been asked to do so, to order that the applicant pay the Minister's costs of the proceedings.

However, I also direct the Minister to communicate with the applicant in writing, informing him of the court's order and drawing the attention of the applicant to the rules which entitle a party against whom an order has been made in his absence, to apply to have the order set aside.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett

Associate:

Dated:             10 July 1997

Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Solicitor for the Respondent:   -
Date of Hearing: 10 July 1997
Date of Judgment: 10  July 1997
Details
AGLC
Chi, Tong Chun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 692
Case
[1997] FCA 692
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court was an application by Tong Chun Chi for a review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a delegate's refusal to grant him a protection visa. This refusal was based on the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs' assessment of Chi's application for refugee status. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and whether the application should proceed. The legal issues centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958, specifically in relation to the criteria for granting a protection visa and the procedural fairness owed to the applicant.

Justice Emmett found that the application was unlikely to succeed based on the evidence presented to the Tribunal. Chi, who had been outside his country of origin for 30 years, had made multiple unsuccessful applications for residency in Australia. The Tribunal had expressed sympathy for Chi's situation but ultimately upheld the delegate's decision. With Chi withdrawing his application and indicating that he did not wish to proceed, and given that Chi had no financial means to cover potential costs, Justice Emmett deemed it appropriate to dismiss the application. Additionally, the Minister's request to have the applicant pay the costs of the proceedings was granted, but Justice Emmett directed the Minister to inform Chi of the court's order and his right to apply to set aside the order if he chose to do so.

In conclusion, the Federal Court dismissed Tong Chun Chi's application for judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision, finding that the application was unlikely to succeed and that the applicant had withdrawn his application. The court ordered Chi to pay the Minister's costs, while also directing the Minister to inform Chi of his right to seek to set aside the order in the absence of his appearance in court. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the consequences of withdrawing an application in judicial review proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Full text does not contain this section.