Eib19 v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

[2020] FCCA 1186

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EIB19 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.2) [2020] FCCA 1186

Catchwords:
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application for an adjournment – whether adjournment warranted in the interests of the administration of justice –application for an adjournment refused.

Applicant: EIB19

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: SYG 2835 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 5 May 2020

Date of Last Submission: 5 May 2020

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 5 May 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Williams via Microsoft Teams

Solicitors for the Applicant: Barriston Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr T Reilly via Microsoft Teams

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mills Oakley

ORDERS

1. The applicant’s request for an adjournment is refused.

DATE OF ORDER: 5 May 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2835 of 2019

EIB19

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In these proceedings, the applicant sought to rely upon a proposed further amended application that sought production of a document being a SIEV report. Leave to rely upon that proposed further application was refused. Leave to seek or the request to seek production of the SIEV report was refused. The Court has delivered reasons for the refusal.

2. The Court then asked Mr Williams of counsel on behalf of the applicant whether the adjournment application was now redundant. Mr Williams sought to re-agitate the rulings of the Court. No proper basis was identified upon which an adjournment should be granted. The first respondent opposed the grant of an adjournment.

3. In these circumstances, the Court was not satisfied that an adjournment was warranted in the interests of the administration of justice.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the transcript of the published oral reasons for judgment of Judge Street delivered in open Court on 5 May 2020 and the parties were sent a sealed copy of the Court’s orders.

Date: 19 May 2020