Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1951

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 1951

OLGA DRANICHNIKOV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND MS RYNEETE GAULT in her capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs AND MR KEVIN DUFFY in his capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Q 89 of 2000

DOWSETT J
8 DECEMBER 2000
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 89 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

OLGA DRANICHNIKOV
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MS RYNEETE GAULT in her capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
SECOND RESPONDENT

MR KEVIN DUFFY in his capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 DECEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The motion is dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 89 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

OLGA DRANICHNIKOV
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

MS RYNEETE GAULT in her capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
SECOND RESPONDENT

MR KEVIN DUFFY in his capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	8 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter is listed for argument today.  The applicant has filed a notice of motion seeking judgment against the respondent for alleged default in complying with directions given as to its conduct.  I should say that this is an application by way of appeal from a decision under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Alternatively, the applicant seeks to have the proceedings delayed, she says because she requires time to respond to the respondent’s outline of argument.

2. On 6 October this year I gave directions in this matter.  Pursuant to those directions, the respondent was obliged to serve an indexed application book by 27 October.  The applicant was to file any material on or before 20 October and the first respondent was to file any material in reply on or before 27 October.  It appears from Mr Belcher’s affidavit that the Appeal Book was not delivered on 27 October but was delivered on 30 October.  It seems, however, that it had not then been filed or at least the copy delivered to the applicant did not bear the Court’s stamp.

3. Nonetheless, there is no suggestion that it was other than an accurate copy of a document which has been filed and upon which the respondent relies in those proceedings.  In those circumstances, I can see no reason why the applicant should expect to be in any way disadvantaged by either the slight delay in serving the book upon her or by the fact that it did not bear the Court’s stamp.  The applicant says that she was forced to come to the Court to compare the copy of the book provided to her by the respondent with that filed.  I fear, however, that this bespeaks an unreasonable suspicion on her part and not one upon which I think she can rely for present purposes.

4. The second ground of the notice of motion appears to be that although the applicant delivered an outline of her submissions to the respondent quite some time ago, the respondent did not deliver his submissions until the 6^th of this month when they were delivered in draft form and in final form on 7 December.  No order was made for the delivery of outlines, although it seems that the Deputy Registrar in response to an inquiry from the applicant indicated that she could give an outline if she wished and suggested that it should also be sent to the respondent.  The Deputy Registrar also indicated that if the respondent proposed to provide an outline, he would probably provide the applicant with it in advance.  These things have in fact happened.

5. As no order was made I can see with respect to outlines, I can see no basis upon which I could penalise the respondent for not having provided it at any earlier stage, but in any event it was provided in substantially the final form on 6 December which in all the circumstances seems reasonable to me.  The applicant has in any event as far as I can see correctly identified the basis of the respondent’s argument and dealt with it in her own outline.  For those reasons, I can see neither any basis for the notice of motion nor any other basis upon which the applicant should have the benefit of a further adjournment of these proceedings.

6. In any event, as it is now time for the luncheon adjournment she will have a further opportunity to prepare herself between now and 2.15 pm.  The motion is dismissed with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:             2 February 2001

The Applicant appeared in person.
Intrepreter for the Applicant:	Ms T Downs
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr M Swann
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr M Belcher (Australian Government Solicitor)
Date of Hearing:	8 December 2000
Date of Judgment:	8 December 2000