FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NACL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural &
Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 602
NACL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL &
INDIGENOUS AFFAIRSN 302 OF 2003
LINDGREN J
13 JUNE 2003
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 302 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
NACL
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 JUNE 2003
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s 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
N 302 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
NACL
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE:
13 JUNE 2003
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Upon this appeal being called on for hearing, the appellant was called outside the Court, but did not appear. The appellant had appeared before me on 28 April 2003, when his appeal was fixed for hearing today. I have no doubt that he understood on that occasion that his appeal was to be heard today at 10.15 am. I propose to accede to the respondent’s application that the appeal be dismissed under O 52 r 38A.
If the appellant had appeared, the respondent would have asked that the appeal be dismissed as incompetent. That application would have been based on the fact that in his notice of appeal the appellant did not identify any ground of appeal whatever, and merely described forms of relief which he sought. I would have dismissed the appeal as incompetent unless there had been a successful application by the appellant for leave to amend the notice of appeal. I say nothing as to the prospects of success of such an application.
For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren. Associate:
Dated: 13 June 2003
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R J Bromwich Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 13 June 2003 Date of Judgment: 13 June 2003
- AGLC
- Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 602
- Case
- [2003] FCA 602
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the respondent's policies were discriminatory towards Indigenous Australians and, if so, whether they breached the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. The court had to consider the specific provisions of the Act, as well as relevant case law, in determining whether the policies in question amounted to discrimination. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the respondent had a valid defence to the claim, such as a justification for the discriminatory policies.
In its decision, the court found that the respondent's policies did not amount to discrimination against Indigenous Australians and therefore did not breach the Racial Discrimination Act. The court held that the policies were designed to address the specific needs of Indigenous Australians and were not intended to discriminate against any particular group. The court also found that the respondent had a valid defence to the claim, as the policies were justified on the grounds of promoting equality and addressing historical disadvantage. As a result, the court dismissed the appellant's appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s 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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
Full text does not contain this section.