Lee v Min for Imm & Multicultural Affairs

[1999] HCATrans 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M96 of 1997

B e t w e e n -

JAE BOK LEE

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 1999, AT 1.58 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR J.B. LEE appeared in person.

MR R.M. DOWNING, QC:   If your Honours please, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

GLEESON CJ:   We will just read this, Mr Lee.

MR LEE:   I come into Court with my friend, Mrs Betty Thuan.  She can understand a little bit about my broken English and she can interpret about your Honours’ talking about this, okay?  So, I will be assist Mrs Betty Thuan.  If you permit, she can assist for me.

GLEESON CJ:   Would you like her to speak on your behalf?

MR LEE:   Yes, thank you, sir.

GLEESON CJ:   Have you any objection?

MR DOWNING:   No, no objection, your Honour.

MR LEE:   May I speak too?   RRT did not find basis under the Geneva Convention.  Why?  RRT did not take notice of my evidence of ongoing situation in Korea.  ….. bank officials would be liable for the payment and compensation to me.  RRT did not recognise the……of the situation whereby the bank called upon the Army Security Agency to suppress me.  This situation became very dangerous for me when I won my first court case against the bank, Korean Exchange Bank.  I fled Korea before this case was completed.  That is why I am very danger and I want tell your Honour, I am not civil appeal between bank.  I won already one cheque among one of five cheque, only the one, 100 per cent one in the Korean Shipping court so next four is nothing to do with civil – without any trouble with the bank.  All the problem is political ground against me.

All I want tell is that and I want to tell your Honour RRT quoted the report of the United States - - -

GUMMOW J:   Look, Mr Lee, you are not appealing against the RRT.  You have been to the RRT, you have been to one judge of the Federal Court of Australia, you have been to three judges of the Federal Court of Australia.

MR LEE:   Yes.

GUMMOW J:   Just listen to me.

MR LEE:   RRT - - -

GUMMOW J:   You have been to three judges of the Federal Court of Australia.

MR LEE:   Yes, I - - -

GUMMOW J:   And you seek leave to appeal from the decision of the three judges of the Federal Court.  Right?

MR LEE:   Yes.

GUMMOW J:   You have to satisfy us that there is some error in the judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court.  You will not do that by going over ground in the RRT.

MR LEE:   Yes.  Not only RRT, single judge and the Full
Bench as well.  RRT did not study about or did not look at about Amnesty International.  RRT decide only – not sufficient evidence.  RRT decided not enough, not sufficient evidence.  At that time all the local people and the Time magazine write all about Korean political situation.  It all old crisis.  More hard line than President…..successors.  That is it, simply so.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you.

MRS B. THUAN:   If I may speak on Mr Lee’s behalf, please?

GLEESON CJ:   I thought he was going to ask you to translate for him.  How long do you expect to be?

MRS THUAN:   I will be fairly brief, with permission.

GLEESON CJ:   Do you object to this, Mr Downing?

MR DOWNING:   No, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, go ahead.

MRS THUAN:   Mr Lee, as you can observe, has been hampered both by his failure – his lack of grasp of English.  He has been further hampered by the lack of legal aid, so that he has - - -

GLEESON CJ:   What do you say is the error involved in the reasons for judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court?

MRS THUAN:   The error involved has to do with the failure, in the initial case, of the RRT to consider evidence which was put before it which related to the present circumstances of Mr Lee.  That has been the basis of appeal, repeatedly, through the courts.  Mr Lee has currently a live situation in Korea which endangers his life.  He fled Korea because of the existence of that situation and he has attempted to provide evidence to the RRT and, indeed, subsequent courts to the effect that the situation has not been resolved in Korea and the circumstances have not changed.  There is no evidence in any of the decisions of the courts that the force of this argument has been given full consideration.  So, if I may outline that argument, your Honour?

GLEESON CJ:   Yes.

MRS THUAN:   Mr Lee was a man of considerable substance and came from a reputable family.  At a certain point, he was engaged in litigation between someone who had purchased one of his fleet of fishing vessels and this escalated into a situation where the Korean Exchange Bank took the side of the person who had purchased the vessel and denied Mr Lee the payment for the vessel and, further, engineered or arranged for him not to have operational loans to conduct his business.  This resulted in his bankruptcy and he brought a number of civil cases against both the purchaser of the vessel and against the bank. 

The sequence of cases and appeals led to the bank ultimately being defeated in the Korean Supreme Court and this left Mr Lee with a situation where he was able to proceed to take further litigation against the bank.  I understand that the sums involved in Australian dollars in today’s money would be of the order of $25 or $30 million.  However, the situation in Korea is such that there is interaction between different arms of the government and where action is, on occasion, taken against its citizenry, action of a kind that is not taken in Australia, and Mr Lee was, in the case of his bankruptcy, prevented on more than one occasion from taking up appointments as the master of a fishing fleet where he would gain the contract and have it cancelled the next day.  This appeared to be the result of action by the Army Security Agency.  It would appear that the government-owned Exchange Bank and the Army Security Agency were in an attempt to suppress Mr Lee and to suppress the subsequent court cases that he was in a position to bring.

When he won his case against the bank his situation became acutely dangerous.  He feared for his life and he fled before the court case was, in fact, settled and the settlement of the case was effected after he was in Australia.  It is these circumstances which lead Mr Lee to believe that he is

currently in danger if he returns to Korea, that the issue that has emerged is based upon the politicisation by the State of what was originally a civil matter and that has given rise to his initial appeal to the RRT and to the subsequent appeals.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you.

In this matter, the Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia was correct and, for that reason, the application for leave to appeal is refused.

MR DOWNING:  Your Honour, I would ask for costs.

GLEESON CJ:   Do you have anything to say on costs?

MS THUAN:   Mr Lee has no financial resources, so can he appeal against that or - - -?

GLEESON CJ:   No.  I mean, it might mean that it does not do anybody any good to get an order for costs against him but it is not usually a reason for not making an order.

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

AT 2.10 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED