Lewai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)

[2001] FCA 1314

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lewai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2001]
FCA 1314

TIMOCI LEWAI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 1214 OF 2001

TIMOCI LEWAI v GRANT DAVIDSON AND WENDY GREEN

N 1301 OF 2001

HELY J
12 SEPTEMBER 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1214 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

TIMOCI LEWAI
APPLICANT

AND:

BETWEEN:

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

N 1301 OF 2001

TIMOCI LEWAI
APPLICANT

GRANT DAVIDSON
FIRST RESPONDENT

WENDY GREEN
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 SEPTEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        In each matter, the application be dismissed with 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 1214 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

TIMOCI LEWAI
APPLICANT

AND:

BETWEEN:

AND

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

N 1301 OF 2001

TIMOCI LEWAI
APPLICANT

GRANT DAVIDSON
FIRST RESPONDENT

WENDY GREEN
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE:	12 SEPTEMBER 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was heard by me on  Friday 7 September 2001 and adjourned until today.  I adjourned the matter for two reasons: the first was so that I could give consideration to the detailed submissions which had been put on both sides as to whether this was an appropriate case in which to grant interlocutory relief; the second was to give Mr Zipser the opportunity of instituting proceedings which he had foreshadowed challenging the propriety of the applicant’s removal.

2. I have come to the conclusion that the application for interlocutory relief should be refused and I publish my reasons for coming to that decision.  Those reasons were prepared before I received some further submissions during the course of this morning from Mr Zipser and some submissions from Mr Roberts at lunch time.  I was not expecting to receive the submissions from counsel as I thought that the argument on the issue had concluded last Friday.

3. For that reason the reasons which I had prepared do not advert specifically to the documents that were received during the course of the morning.  I have had the opportunity of reading those documents and nothing which is in them causes me to change either the conclusions which I had reached or the reasons which I have given for coming to those conclusions. 

4. Accordingly, the application for interlocutory relief is refused and, as I said, I publish my reasons for coming to that decision.

5. Mr Zipser, in the light of the reasons which I have given, seeks that I should finally determine the application for an order of review in proceedings N1214 of 2001 which has been fixed for hearing in November.  He has also requested that I determine the application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act which was returnable this afternoon.  If I may say so, that is a sensible attitude for him to adopt. 

6. It follows from the reasons that I have given that it is my opinion that the Application for an Order of Review fails and should be dismissed.  It is also my opinion that the application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act fails and should be dismissed

7. In each case the application is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.

Associate:

Dated:             12 September 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr B Zipser
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	12 September 2001
Date of Judgment:	12 September 2001