Herijanto v Refugee Review Tribunal

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

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 [2000] HCA 16
31 March 2000
S97/1998

ORDER

  1. Interrogatories 3, 5, 6, 7(b), (c), (d) and (e) and 8 to 67 inclusive are set aside.

  1. The plaintiff is to pay two-thirds of the defendants' costs.

Representation:

M A Robinson for the plaintiff (instructed by Adrian Joel & Co)

R T Beech-Jones for the 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
31 March 2000
S36/1999

ORDER

  1. Interrogatories 3, 5, 6, 7(b), (c), (d) and (e) and 8 to 59 inclusive are set aside.

  1. The plaintiff is to pay two-thirds of the defendants' costs.

Representation:

M A Robinson for the plaintiff (instructed by Adrian Joel & Co)

R T Beech-Jones for the 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
31 March 2000
S89/1999

ORDER

  1. Interrogatories 3, 5, 6, 7(b), (c), (d) and (e) and 8 to 56 inclusive are set aside.

  1. The plaintiff is to pay two-thirds of the defendants' costs.

Representation:

M A Robinson for the plaintiff (instructed by Adrian Joel & Co)

R T Beech-Jones for the 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.

  1. GAUDRON J. The plaintiff in each of these matters has brought proceedings as the representative of various persons who seek injunctive and other relief under s 75(v) of the Constitution. They seek that relief with respect to decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), the first defendant in each matter. The plaintiff in each matter has administered Interrogatories to an individual member of the Tribunal, the three sets of Interrogatories being in identical or substantially identical form. Application has been made in each matter for all but one of the Interrogatories to be set aside.

  2. Pursuant to O 32 r 5(1) of the High Court Rules ("the Rules"):

    "    Interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or may be struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous."

    In essence, it is claimed in each matter that all but one of the Interrogatories are unreasonable or vexatious by reason that they infringe the protection and immunity which individual members…

CaseChat AU logo

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 16
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Herijanto (the plaintiff) sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the defendant). The dispute concerned the Tribunal's refusal to grant the plaintiff a protection visa. The matter came before Gaudron J of the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether certain interrogatories sought by the plaintiff were oppressive and an abuse of process. The plaintiff sought to interrogate the Tribunal regarding its decision-making process, including the reasons for its findings and the weight given to particular evidence.

Gaudron J reasoned that the function of the Tribunal was to make a decision based on the evidence before it, and that the interrogatories sought to inquire into the mental processes of the decision-maker, which is impermissible. The Court applied the principle that interrogatories should not be used to embark on a "fishing expedition" or to challenge the merits of a decision, but rather to elicit facts relevant to the issues in dispute. The Court found that the interrogatories were designed to probe the Tribunal's reasoning rather than to obtain relevant facts, and were therefore an abuse of process.

Consequently, Gaudron J ordered that interrogatories 3, 5, 6, 7(b), (c), (d) and (e) and 8 to 67 inclusive be set aside, and that the plaintiff pay two-thirds of the defendant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Interrogatories 3, 5, 6, 7(b), (c), (d) and (e) and 8 to 67 inclusive are set aside.

2.

The plaintiff is to pay two-thirds of the defendants' costs.

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 (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.