MIGRATION - powers of Refugee Review Tribunal - whether Tribunal has the power to reconsider or re-open a final decision - whether failure to re-open is a reviewable decision for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958
WORDS AND PHRASES - "Decision" - meaning of that word for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958
WORDS AND PHRASES - "functus officio"
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - doctrine of functus officio - scope - whether doctrine can be characterised as a legal technicality
s 48A, s 48B, s 50, s 368(1), s 412, s 414(1)(2), s 415(1), s 416, s 420, s 420(1), s 420(2)(b), s 430(1), s 475(1)(b), s 476, s 476(1)(a), s 476(1)(e), s 478, s 481, s 485(1)
Salerno v National Crime Authority (von Doussa, Drummond and
Mansfield JJ, 5 June 1997, unreported)
SHANTHA KARUNARATNA JAYASINGHE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS & ANOR No VG 526 of 1996
GOLDBERG J MELBOURNE 25 JUNE 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
GENERAL DIVISION ) No VG 526 of 1996
B E T W E E N:
SHANTHA KARUNARATNA JAYASINGHE Applicant
and
THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS First Respondent and
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL (constituted by R ZALEWSKI) Second Respondent
CORAM:GOLDBERG J
PLACE:MELBOURNE
DATE:25 JUNE 1997
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The amended application be dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondents their costs of the proceeding including reserved costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court rules
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA…
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.
Continue reading Jayasinghe v MIEA
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jayasinghe v MIEA [1997] FCA 551
Case
[1997] FCA 551
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Jayasinghe v MIEA before Goldberg J in the Federal Court of Australia dealt with the issue of whether the Refugee Review Tribunal had the power to reconsider or reopen its decision on the review of an RRT-reviewable decision after it had made and published its decision. The applicant, Shantha Karunaratna Jayasinghe, filed an application for an order of review in respect of two decisions of the Tribunal, the first decision being that he was not entitled to a protection visa as he was not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the second being the decision made by the Tribunal on 5 August 1996 refusing to reconsider the applicant's application. The Court found that the Tribunal did not have the power to reconsider or reopen a decision on a review determining the substantive application and that it acted correctly in informing the applicant's solicitors on 5 August 1996 that it was functus officio. There is no implied power on the part of the Tribunal to reconsider a decision on the review as provided for in s 430. The Court dismissed the amended application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents their costs of the proceeding.