Haridas, Rameshwary v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[1998] FCA 1234

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 102 of 1998

BETWEEN:	RAMESHWARY HARIDAS APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:		WHITLAM, TAMBERLIN & EMMETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:		14 JULY 1998
WHERE MADE:		SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

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	NG 102 of 1998

BETWEEN:	RAMESHWARY HARIDAS APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	WHITLAM, TAMBERLIN & EMMETT JJ
DATE:	14 JULY 1998
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)

WHITLAM J:
This proceeding was commenced on 17 February 1998 when Ms Haridas (“the appellant”) filed a notice of appeal against a decision of O'Connor J given on 16 February 1998.  Her Honour dismissed as incompetent the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) affirming the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the respondent”) not to grant her a protection visa.

On 9 June 1998 the respondent filed a notice of motion seeking to have the appeal dismissed. The motion was made returnable for hearing along with the substantive issues in the appeal at 10.15am today. The basis of the motion is that the appellant failed to seek leave of the Court to appeal, as required by s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Thus, its success or otherwise turns on whether Justice O’Connor’s decision was interlocutory. The respondent’s counsel has prepared written submissions on that point. Nonetheless, I do not think it is necessary to decide the motion. I shall say only that, if I were convinced that Justice O’Connor’s decision was interlocutory and that leave to appeal from it was therefore required, I should not grant such leave.

On the face of it, it is quite apparent that this appeal cannot succeed.  Clearly, the application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision was incompetent for the reasons given by O’Connor J.  The appellant has today repeated the submissions that she made before O'Connor J and to which her Honour refers.  I have heard those and I understand what she says.  But those submissions do not in any way suggest that O’Connor J was in error. 

Accordingly, whilst the appellant has had the misfortune of having to appear for herself, both here and before O’Connor J, the appeal in my opinion should be dismissed with costs.

TAMBERLIN J:

Yes, I agree with the reasons and the order proposed by the presiding judge.

EMMETT J:

I also agree that the orders proposed should be made for the reasons given.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court

Associate:

Dated:  14 July 1998

Appellant in person.

Counsel for the respondent:	Justin Smith
Solicitor for the respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing:	14 July 1998
Date of judgment:	14 July 1998