Hadchiti v Minister for Immigration

[2017] FCCA 2879

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HADCHITI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2017] FCCA 2879

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Transfer from this Court to the Federal Court of Australia.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.39

Applicant: ELIAS HADCHITI

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

File Number: SYG 3322 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Dowdy

Hearing date: 17 November 2017

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 17 November 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A. Flecknoe-Brown of Counsel

Solicitors for the Applicant: Jack Rigg Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S. He

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mills Oakley

THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Pursuant to s.39(1) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), these proceedings be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia.

2. There be no order as to costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3322 of 2017

ELIAS HADCHITI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

(Revised From Transcript)

1. In this matter the parties ask me, by consent, to transfer this matter to the Federal Court of Australia. I am told that it is a matter that should be transferred for the primary reason that it is in the efficient interests of the administration of justice that the transfer be effected because a related matter is already pending in the Federal Court before Markovic J, being matter number NSD 1898 of 2017, which is related to this proceeding and which involves the Minister’s own personal discretionary decision.

2. So that is enough to persuade me that it is proper for a transfer to be made. Mr Flecknoe-Brown of Counsel, who appears for the Applicant, properly raised the technical issue of whether or not I should hold my hand in terms of transferring because of notice having to be given to the Attorneys General because of a constitutional point related to the matter, but I think that the consent transfer is of such a banal and ordinary nature that it is appropriate to save costs and not necessary for me to stand it over for a couple of weeks before the proposed notice is given as it would be inconceivable that the Attorneys General would wish to appear to oppose the transfer to the Federal Court.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Dowdy

Associate: 

Date:  22 November 2017