EMJ17 v Minister for Immigration
[2018] FCCA 722
•21 March 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| EMJ17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2018] FCCA 722 |
| Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to strike out paragraph 4 of the subpoena – production required under paragraph 4 – application refused. |
| Applicant: | EMJ17 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY |
| File Number: | SYG 3099 of 2017 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Street |
| Hearing date: | 21 March 2018 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 21 March 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 21 March 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mr S Tambimuttu Hodges Legal |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr G Johnson |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
The application to strike out paragraph 4 of the subpoena dated 8 March 2018 is dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3099 of 2017
| EMJ17 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Objection is taken to paragraph 4 of the subpoena on the grounds of relevance. Mr Tambimuttu submitted that it was somehow relevant to ground 1 to prove what the process was that gave rise to the assessment that the applicant had been eligible under the Primary Application and Information Service (“PAIS”) assistance scheme. It is not apparent to the Court how the process of the PAIS scheme could be relevant.
In order to prevent an evidentiary issue giving rise to a problem in another forum, if a different Court were to take a different view, the Court is of the view that the preferable course is to require production under paragraph 4 of the documents that have been able to be identified as falling within the same, notwithstanding the Court’s concern as to the irrelevance of the material.
The application to strike out paragraph 4 of the subpoena dated 5 March 2018 is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street
Associate:
Date: 23 April 2018
0
0