M87 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 381
•2 March 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| M87 of 2004 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 381 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
| Applicants: | APPLICANT M87 of 2004 |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | MLG 1404 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 2 March 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Hearing Date: | 2 March 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Riethmuller FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicants: | No appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Brereton |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The applicants’ application be dismissed.
The applicants do pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,000.00.
The applicants not commence further proceedings without leave of a Court with appropriate jurisdication.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1404 of 2004
| APPLICANT M87 of 2004 |
Applicant
and
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
This is an application by a husband and wife for reinstatement of an application for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 2 August 2002. The application was dismissed by consent, apparently in error.
The substantive matter has already been before the court on a previous occasion when it was heard and determined by Bryant CFM (as she then was) in a judgment handed down on 23 January 2004, following a hearing on 14 January 2004.
The current proceedings appear to be in substantially the same, if not identical, terms. The applicants do not identify any different case on this occasion to that which was determined by Bryant CFM. Indeed, they say from the bar table that the case is the same.
In these circumstances the decision of Bryant CFM appears to me to create an estoppel and that the current case is therefore futile.
For these reasons, even though I accept the explanation given by the applicants as to how they came to sign the consent dismissal order, it still seems that there is no point reinstating the matter today as it is ultimately doomed to fail because it has previously been determined in a way adverse to the applicants by the former Chief Federal Magistrate. It is not the role of this court to hear a case already decided by a previous member of the court.
In the circumstances I therefore dismiss the current application.
It appears to me that it is appropriate, given that this case involves multiple applications, that there be an order that the applicants not file further applications without first obtaining leave of the court.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riethmuller FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0