Herijanto v Refugee Review Tribunal - [2000] HCA 49

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GAUDRON J

HERIJANTO (As the Representative of the Persons
listed in the Schedule) PLAINTIFF
AND
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS DEFENDANTS
Herijanto v Refugee Review Tribunal [No 3] [2000] HCA 49
8 September 2000
S97/1998
ORDER
1.Costs of the hearing of this aspect of the proceedings to be costs in the cause.

2.Certify that it was proper for the attendance of counsel.
3.The parties are directed to prepare draft questions to be reserved for the consideration of a Full Bench on or before Monday, 23 October 2000.
4.The matter is stood over until 9.30 am in Sydney on Monday, 23 October 2000.

Representation:
M A Robinson for the plaintiff (instructed by Adrian Joel & Co)
No appearance for the first defendant
J Basten QC for the second and third defendants (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GAUDRON J

MUIN (As the Representative of the Persons
listed in the Schedule) PLAINTIFF
AND
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS DEFENDANTS
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [No 3]
8 September 2000
S36/1999
ORDER
1.Costs of the hearing of this aspect of the proceedings to be costs in the cause.

2.Certify that it was proper for the attendance of counsel.
3.The parties are directed to prepare draft questions to be reserved for the consideration of a Full Bench on or before Monday, 23 October 2000.
4.The matter is stood over until 9.30 am in Sydney on Monday, 23 October 2000.

Representation:
M A Robinson for the plaintiff (instructed by Adrian Joel & Co)
No appearance for the first defendant
J Basten QC for the second and third defendants (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GAUDRON J

LIE (As the Representative of the Persons
listed in the Schedule) PLAINTIFF
AND
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS DEFENDANTS
Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [No 3]
8 September 2000
S89/1999
ORDER
1.Costs of the hearing of this aspect of the proceedings to be costs in the cause.

2.Certify that it was proper for the attendance of counsel.
3.The parties are directed to prepare draft questions to be reserved for the consideration of a Full Bench on or before Monday, 23 October 2000.
4.The matter is stood over until 9.30 am in Sydney on Monday, 23 October 2000.

Representation:
M A Robinson for the plaintiff (instructed by Adrian Joel & Co)
No appearance for the first defendant
J Basten QC for the second and third defendants (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

GAUDRON J. In each of these matters, the plaintiffs, who sue on their own behalf and as representatives of the persons named in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Herijanto v Refugee Review Tribunal and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] HCA 49
Decision Date: 8 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Herijanto (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the respondent) to affirm a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant's claim for a protection visa. The matter came before Gaudron J of the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision. Specifically, the applicant contended that the Tribunal's reasons were insufficient to enable him to understand the basis of the decision and to identify grounds for further review.

Gaudron J considered the requirements for adequate reasons in administrative decision-making, referencing established principles that necessitate reasons being sufficiently detailed to allow a party to understand the decision and its justification. Her Honour noted that the adequacy of reasons is a question of fact and degree, depending on the complexity of the case and the issues involved. The Court indicated that the matter required further consideration, particularly regarding the specific content of the Tribunal's reasons in relation to the applicant's claims.

The Court made orders regarding the costs of the hearing, certifying the propriety of counsel's attendance, and directed the parties to prepare draft questions for consideration by a Full Bench. The matter was then stood over for further proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Costs of the hearing of this aspect of the proceedings to be costs in the cause.

2. Certify that it was proper for the attendance of counsel.

3. The parties are directed to prepare draft questions to be reserved for the consideration of a Full Bench on or before Monday, 23 October 2000.

4. The matter is stood over until 9.30 am in Sydney on Monday, 23 October 2000.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GAUDRON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GAUDRON J

Full text does not contain this section.