EMJ17 v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.3)

[2018] FCCA 725

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EMJ17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.3) [2018] FCCA 725

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment application to formulate proposed amendment to the amended application – 3 day adjournment not required – 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

1. The application for an adjournment for three days is refused.

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

1. Mr Tambimuttu has asked for an adjournment for three days. The adjournment is opposed by the first respondent. The adjournment is for the purpose of amending the amended application that was itself filed outside of the time permitted by the Court.

2. The Court in the absence of opposition permitted the amended application to be filed on 10 March 2018. Mr Tambimuttu’s application for amendment arises as a result of the production of documents in relation to the Primary Application and Information Service (“PAIS”) assistance scheme that was apparent on the face of the court book. The applicant’s solicitors have been the solicitors on the record since the commencement of the proceedings. The fact that there were documents that must have been produced for the purpose of the PAIS scheme would have been patent since the solicitors commenced acting for the applicant.

3. To the extent that there have been produced documents, those documents identify that the applicant, in the course of the assessment, was assessed as having a history of torture and trauma. Whether that history of torture and trauma, in any way, advances any alleged error under ground 1 is a simple proposition to formulate.

4. Mr Tambimuttu has run a similar argument before this Court on an earlier occasion. The Court does not accept that an adjournment of three days is required in order to formulate any proposed amendment to ground 1. Whether the Court will grant leave is a matter that the Court will assess when the proposed amendment is produced. The Court will stand the matter down while it hears another matter giving the applicant’s representative an opportunity to re-formulate any alleged ground of error. The Court is not satisfied that an adjournment of any longer period of time is required in the interests of the administration of justice.

5. The application for an adjournment of three days is refused.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate:

Date:  23 April 2018