Ilamsingham, Ex parte - Re Ruddock

[1999] HCATrans 331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M11 of 1998

In the matter of –

An application for Writs of Prohibition, Certiorari and Mandamus and an Injunction against THE HONOURABLE PHILIP RUDDOCK, HER MAJESTY’S MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

DR RORY HUDSON,sitting as the REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

SHUNMUGAM NGANASAMANTHAM in his capacity as principal member of the REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Third Respondent

Ex parte –

GEORGE ST VICTOR ILAMSINGHAM

Prosecutor

HAYNE J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON MONDAY, 11 OCTOBER 1999, AT 10.37 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

_________________

MR D.J.D. TRINDADE:   I appear for the prosecutor, your Honour.  (instructed by Clayton Utz)

MR C.L. RAWSON:   If it please the Court, I appear for the first respondent.  (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:   Now again, where are we up to with this matter?

MR TRINDADE:   Your Honour, this application is for relief in respect of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal.  There are 12 grounds, two of which are apprehended bias and also the Wednesbury unreasonableness.  In those circumstances, we would submit that the matter is not suitable for remittal and that it is ready to proceed.

HIS HONOUR:   In Eshetu, I think it was, Justice Gummow gave quite some careful consideration to Wednesbury unreasonableness, I think I am right in saying, and its application in migration matters.  No doubt at some point we are going to have to confront this, but Wednesbury unreasonableness sometimes seems to be a phrase that trips off the tongue.  It may require some quite careful analysis, I think, in particular cases.  Then what do you say I should do, Mr Trindade?  Should I simply give directions along the general lines I have earlier given?  What do you say I should do?

MR TRINDADE:   That would be acceptable to the prosecutor, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Rawson, what do you say I should do?

MR RAWSON:   Equally acceptable to the respondent, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   If I fix a timetable of the kind earlier fixed, namely 1 November, 22 November, 10 December, is that a timetable that the parties are content with?

MR RAWSON:   The second date, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR:   1 November, 22 November, 10 December.

MR RAWSON:   I thought your Honour said 2 November and that was not going to be enough time in solicitor’s time ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   I do not know.  That might cause you to move with a degree of alacrity, Mr Rawson.

MR RAWSON:   It certainly would, your Honour, particularly as it appears to be Cup day, your Honour. 

HIS HONOUR:   I seem to have missed out both the Canberra and the Sydney holidays and the Melbourne holidays recently.  Cup day, I think, the Melbourne chambers of the High Court might observe, Mr Rawson.

MR RAWSON:   I am glad to hear it, your Honour.  Was it 6 December?

HIS HONOUR:   1 November, 22 November, 10 December.  Are you content with that timetable, Mr Trindade?  I think you said you were, are you not?

MR TRINDADE:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Then:

1.  Direct that on or before 1 November 1999 the applicant file and serve outline of argument and list of authorities in support of the application for order nisi;

2.  Direct that on or before 22 November 1999 the respondent file and serve an outline of argument and list of authorities in opposition to the application for order nisi;

3.  Direct that on or before 10 December 1999 the applicant file and serve outline of argument in reply to respondent’s submissions;

4.  Reserve costs.

MR TRINDADE:   As your Honour pleases.

AT 10.40 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED