Guo Xiu Yi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 592

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Guo Xiu Yi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2001] FCA 592

GUO XIU YI V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 278 of 2001

MOORE J
3 MAY 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 278 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GUO XIU YI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS AND DIRECTS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

3.The respondent’s solicitors advise the applicant’s solicitor of these orders in writing within seven days.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 278 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GUO XIU YI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	3 MAY 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The application was filed on 21 March 2001 and given a return date at 9.30am on Thursday, 3 May 2001.  The applicant was represented by solicitors when the application was filed.  It was the firm of Andrew Lui, Lawyers, Suites 307 to 308, 431-439 Sussex Street, Sydney.  Today is the first directions hearing.  The matter has been called and there is no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant.  Having regard to the application filed, it, in terms, says nothing of substance about the nature of the error said to have been committed by the Tribunal in making the decision it did.

2. Whilst plainly a case such as this may potentially raise serious and important issues affecting the applicant there is nothing on the material to suggest any such issue is raised.

3. The respondent, the Minister, applies for an order under O 10 r 3(2) that the matter be dismissed for non-appearance.  I consider, in the circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that the applicant is legally represented but that the application is eloquently silent on the grounds of review, it is appropriate to make the order sought.  Plainly enough it does not preclude a further application being made if the procedures contemplated by the rules are followed and satisfied.

4. Accordingly, I order that the application be dismissed under O 10, r 3(2).  I further direct that the solicitors for the Minister write to the solicitor for the applicant within seven days informing that firm of the order that has been made this morning.

5. I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:        

Dated:             21  May 2001

There was no appearance for the Applicant
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr P Loftus of Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	3 May 2001
Date of Judgment:	3 May 2001