Maisuradze v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1946

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Maisuradze & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs  [2000] FCA 1946

MERAB MAISURADZE & MAYA GOGSADZE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1049 OF 2000

JUDGE:         WHITLAM J
DATE:           6 DECEMBER 2000

PLACE:         SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1049 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	MERAB MAISURADZE AND MAYA GOGSADZE APPLICANTS
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an adjournment is refused

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	N1049 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	MERAB MAISURADZE AND MAYA GOGSADZE APPLICANTS
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	6 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an adjournment of the hearing of an application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 25 August 2000.  The application is that of Mr Merab Maisuradze and his de facto wife Maya Gogsadze.

2. The application was filed on 29 September 2000 and a directions hearing was appointed for 10 November 2000.  On that day the applicants appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter. Directions were given by consent.  The applicants were directed to file any amended application, and to file written submissions, five days before the hearing. The hearing was fixed for today.  No amended application has been filed.  The application that was filed does not state in any informative way grounds of review.  The applicants have not filed any written submissions.

3. On the matter being called today Ms Gogsadze appeared and explained that her de facto husband, Mr Maisuradze, is not present in Court because he is suffering from epilepsy.  She asks that the hearing date today be vacated, and that they have a few months adjournment in order to prepare their case. 

4. The material in support of the application for an adjournment touches on the medical condition of Mr Maisuradze.  It includes a copy of the discharge letter of 14 August 2000 in respect of an admission to the Concord Hospital.  That admission is fully explained in a letter dated 21 November 2000 from the senior specialist in the neurology department at that hospital, directed to GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd, in respect of a work accident suffered by Mr Maisuradze on 5 August 2000. That letter states:

   “Mr Maisuradze was admitted acutely to the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord 05.08.2000 with status epilepticus.  At work on the day of 05.08.2000 he had been struck about the eye with a stick.  This caused minor peri-orbital haematoma and headache.  At 8.30 he had a grand mal convulsion and was taken to Liverpool Hospital.  He had two further convulsions on route to Liverpool Hospital, and on admission was suffering from upper airway obstruction.  His fits were terminated with Diazepam and he was intubated.  He was transferred by ambulance to Concord Hospital for intensive care management.  His initial fits were complicated by aspiration and right upper lobe consolidation.  Mr Maisuradze's fits were controlled with intravenous phenytoin.  He was discharged from the intensive care unit 06.08.2000 following extubation, and made a good recovery with no further fits.  He had mild left hemiparesis related to previous gunshot injury to the head during the postictal phase.  He had transient acute renal failure, which fully resolved.  He was discharged home 14.08.2000, on phenytoin 400 mg daily.

   There is no record of epileptic fits prior to 05.08.2000.”

5. The next document tendered by Ms Gogsadze is a report dated 30 November 2000, in respect of an admission to the emergency department at Bankstown Hospital.  The history recorded in that document is of an episode of unresponsiveness, with no loss of consciousness or seizure.  It then notes, in an abbreviated form, the history extracted above.  The physical examination was reported as unremarkable.  A series of other conventional tests were made.  The medical registrar's opinion was that the current dose of phenytoin should be continued at 400 milligrams daily.  The report suggested that Mr Maisuradze’s doctor arrange for follow-up with his regular neurologist.

6. Next is a report from Dr Salvatore Gulisano, a practitioner at the Fairfield Chase Medical and Dental Centre.  He reports having examined Mr Maisuradze on 5 December 2000, and states the opinion that Mr Maisuradze “was suffering from severe drowsiness from Dilantin overdosage”.  The report states that Mr Maisuradze will be “unable to work for the next three days”.

7. That is the state of the medical evidence.

8. When I asked Ms Gogsadze why Mr Maisuradze was not at court today, she said he was at home, not feeling well and feeling nervous, as she does herself.  I regard the explanation for his absence at court today as entirely unconvincing.  A doctor's report given yesterday, in respect of an inability to work for three days, in no way explains why one is unable to appear at court at all today.  It is apparent from the medical material that the epileptic fits suffered by Mr Maisuradze were transitory in nature and endured for one day only.  The medical management was conservative.  Nothing happened after discharge until an apparent self-admission at the Bankstown Hospital on 30 November 2000 with an apparent over dosage.  That was the history taken yesterday, no doubt, by the Dr Gulisano.

9. The explanation given for the absence of Mr Maisuradze is entirely unsatisfactory, and I do not accept the explanation. 

10. I now deal with the application for the adjournment.  At all stages since the protection visa applications were lodged, right through until those applications were finally determined within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958, both applicants have retained a migration agent, as appears from the so-called Green Book. The application for an order of review before the Court has not been prepared properly and no explanation has been given for that. No reason has been suggested as to why it is more likely that it would be more appropriately drawn on behalf of either or both of the applicants if an adjournment were granted for a few months.

11. It is important to note that this is the application of both Mr Maisuradze and Ms Gogsadze.  There is nothing before me whatsoever that would indicate that Mr Maisuradze is in any way better able to conduct the proceedings than Ms Gogsadze.  The Green Book reveals that, while the application for the protection visa depended on Mr Maisuradze's claims to be a refugee and that Ms Gogsadze's application was merely parasitic, the substantive submissions to both the delegate and the Tribunal were made by a Mr Arthur Volonski on behalf of both of the applicants.  Beyond signing the approved forms of application for the protection visa and the application for review, none of the papers reveal any particular expertise in Mr Maisuradze to conduct this application that is likely to be greater than that of Ms Godsadze.

1. Accordingly, the application for an adjournment is refused.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.

Associate:

Dated:             6 December 2000

Maya Gogsadze appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:	Justin Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	6 December 2000
Date of Judgment:	6 December 2000