Iroth v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 822

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Iroth v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 822

NOLDY IROTH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 524 OF 2000

MOORE J
7 JUNE 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 524 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	NOLDY IROTH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 JUNE 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application is dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

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 524 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	NOLDY IROTH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	7 JUNE 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal against a judgment of a judge of this Court dismissing an application seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The application was dismissed because the applicant did not appear at the hearing, though he was aware that the application was listed for hearing on 4 February 2000.

2. His explanation for non-appearance was for personal reasons, though he is not now prepared to explain what those personal reasons are.  I am prepared to accept, however, that he did have a legitimate reason for not appearing.  Of significance is that the learned primary judge reviewed the decision of the Tribunal with a view to ascertaining whether there was any apparent error in the approach of the Tribunal.  His Honour concluded there was not.

3. In an application filed in support of this application for extension of time, the applicant has purported to identify the grounds upon which he challenges the Tribunal's decision.  They were not apparent in the original application.  I have read the affidavit.  There is nothing in it that suggests to me that the applicant seeks to raise a case of substance in support of his challenge to the Tribunal’s decision.

4. In those circumstances, there is no special reason that might warrant the grant of an extension of time.  I am sensitive to the difficulties a person in the position of the applicant might be in and the difficulties associated with articulating a case and presenting it.  However, there are limits to the extent to which this Court might reasonably accommodate a person in his position.

5. I repeat that a judge of this Court has already scrutinised the application and the Tribunal's decision and it is unlikely that the applicant would be able to advance his case in any meaningful way.  Accordingly, I propose to dismiss the application for the extension of time.

6. I order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:             16 June 2000

The applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor/advocate for the respondent:	Ms S Fraser, Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	7 June 2000
Date of Judgment:	7 June 2000