Daniel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Daniel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 395

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 417

Daniel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 21 referred to
Applicant A2 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 576 referred to
Re Batuwantudawa [2003] FCA 684 referred to
Opanayaka Mudiyanselage vMinister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 823 referred to
Applicant M29 of 2001 vMinister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1266 referred to
Applicant VUAD of 2003 vMinister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1331 at [16]‑[20] referred to
Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Marks (2000) 177 ALR 491 at 495-6 referred to
Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 applied

RAJAN JOSEPH DANIEL V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

V 192 OF 2004

WEINBERG J
5 APRIL 2004
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 192 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	RAJAN JOSEPH DANIEL APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WEINBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 APRIL 2004
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal be 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
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 192 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	RAJAN JOSEPH DANIEL APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WEINBERG J
DATE:	5 APRIL 2004
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of Goldberg J delivered on 29 January 2004: Daniel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 21. By that judgment, his Honour, in effect, refused to grant an order nisi seeking what are generally described as “constitutional writs”. His Honour’s judgment was interlocutory. For that reason, the applicant requires leave to appeal.

2. The matter came before Goldberg J on remitter from the High Court.  It began in that Court on 14 February 2001 when the applicant applied for an order nisi for the issue of writs against the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister”), and the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The subject matter of the writs was a decision of the Tribunal made on 16 July 1999 affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing the applicant a protection visa.

3. The applicant sought the issue of a writ of prohibition directed to the Minister, a declaration and a writ of mandamus also directed to the Minister, a writ of certiorari directed to the Tribunal, a writ of mandamus directed to the Tribunal, and an injunction requiring the principal member of the Tribunal to appoint another member to rehear and determine the applicant’s application. 

4. Before his Honour,…