Lachmi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural

[2003] FCA 697

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lachmi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural
& Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 697

SHOBNA LACHMI & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS, MEMBER, MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL & PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

S179 OF 2003

FINN J
8 JULY 2003
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S179 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

SHOBNA LACHMI & ORS
APPLICANTS

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MEMBER, MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 JULY 2003

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicants pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $2,500.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S179 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

SHOBNA LACHMI & ORS
APPLICANTS

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MEMBER, MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE:	8 JULY 2003
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)

1. This matter was begun by originating proceedings in the High Court, seeking judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal affirming a decision that the visa applicants were not entitled to the grant of Temporary Business Entry (class UC) visas.  That matter was remitted to this court by order of Hayne J on 7 February 2003. 

2. On 4 April 2003 Mansfield J of this Court made orders allowing the applicant to file and serve a notice of motion seeking an extension of time within which to file the proceedings and also to file, amongst other things, an affidavit personally deposing to the reasons for delay in the matter.

3. It was indicated in those directions that if the orders giving the leave to file the notice of motion and to file and serve the affidavit were not complied with, the applicant would be called upon at a stipulated directions hearing to show cause why the matter should not stand dismissed.  On 6 June 2003 those orders were varied by Mansfield J, extending the times in which materials were to be provided.  The final order then made by Mansfield J adjourned the directions hearing to today's date, with the intent that if no notice of motion was issued in accordance with the directions given today, the application would be dismissed. 

4. No such notice of motion has been filed and served, no supporting affidavit has been filed and served.  No reasonable explanation for this not occurring has been forthcoming.  In the circumstances, the order of the court will be that the application be dismissed.

5. The court orders the applicants to pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $2,500.  There will be no order as to costs in relation to the second and third respondents.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Finn.

Associate:

Dated:            11 July 2003

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M Clisby
Solicitor for the Applicant:	M W Clisby
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J Harris QC, Mr L Leerdam
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	8 July 2003
Date of Judgment:	8 July 2003