Liyanagama v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 328

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LIYANAGAMA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 328

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for judicial review – application for adjournment by self-represented litigant – application refused.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: THISARA NUWAN LIYANAGAMA

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 977 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge McGuire

Hearing date: 12 February 2015

Date of Last Submission: 12 February 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 12 February 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Goodwin

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application for an adjournment be refused.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 977 of 2014

THISARA NUWAN LIYANAGAMA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter comes on before me on a substantive application for a judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal. When the matter was called on this afternoon the applicant, Mr Liyanagama, appears in person. After establishing that, in accordance with his application, the does not require an interpreter, Mr Liyanagama has provided me with a document entitled Response which purports to be written submissions in support of his application which was filed as long ago as 23 May 2014.

2. Upon asking the applicant whether he had any further oral submissions to make in support of his application, he informed me that he thought he should get a lawyer because he has now received the written submissions of the respondent. I interpreted that to be an application for an adjournment. I explained that situation to the applicant and the matter proceeded on an application for an adjournment. The grounds of the application as I understand it are that he, the applicant, thinks he might now need a lawyer.

3. In accordance with the orders and directions of the registrar made on 1 September 2014, the applicant has now been provided with the written submissions of the first respondent. Notably those orders and directions of the registrar provided that the applicant himself make, file and serve his written submissions, if any, by 15 January 2015. He has not done so, save and except that document that I have already referred to and provided to the Court only today. The applicant says that he has not previously been represented by lawyers in these proceedings and has conducted his own application through the course of the tribunal and to this court.

4. He filed his application as long ago as May 2014. The applicant says that he went to a “local Legal Aid office” about two months ago and got some oral advice but he concedes that since then he has done nothing to enlist the assistance of a private lawyer, a pro bono lawyer, a community legal centre, or otherwise. When I asked him as to why he has not done anything in anticipation of this hearing, he says that he has been busy working and has had a trip abroad.

5. The application is opposed.

6. Counsel for the Respondent notes that the application was made almost nine months ago in May 2014, that the registrar made orders and directions in anticipation of this hearing some six months ago in August of 2014, putting the applicant on notice as to the hearing date. Counsel argues that there has not been a sufficient or satisfactory explanation given for the failure of the applicant to enlist, engage, or attempt to obtain legal assistance in the interim period.

7. Generally speaking, I accept the submissions of counsel for the first respondent, and I adopt them in these reasons and add that all parties, including the respondent Department or Minister has a right to a prudent disposition of litigation.  It is quite clear that the public purse is involved here and that it is every bit as much a prejudice or detriment if there be any delay of these proceedings.  I have considered the reasons given by the applicant for not yet having engaged legal assistance. I have considered the chronology.  Essentially, I am not satisfied that the applicant has made sufficient argument or grounds for an adjournment at this late stage, and certainly without any prior notice to the Minister.  The minister is the respondent and as such primarily ‘responds’ to issues raised by the Applicant rather than raise new issues. The application for an adjournment is refused. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge McGuire

Date:  17 March 2015