Marawa v Commonwealth of Australia

[2005] FCA 1001

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Marawa v Commonwealth of Australia [2005] FCA 1001

VIRISETA VULA TALEI MARAWA (An infant by her next friend Adi Bera Maramanivula Marawa) v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR

NSD700 OF 2005

CHELSIE RAHMADHINI NOER (An infant by her next friend Hoesni Syabil Noer) & ANOR v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR

NSD668 OF 2005

EMMETT J
22 JUNE 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD700 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

VIRISETA VULA TALEI MARAWA (An infant by her next best friend Adi Bera Maramnivula Marawa)
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 JUNE 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT:

1.        Orders that the proceeding be dismissed.

2.        Orders the next friend of the applicant pay the respondents’ costs.

3.Directs that any application for leave to appeal from Orders 1 and 2 be listed at the same time as the applications for leave to appeal in proceeding NSD305 of 2005.

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	NSD668 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

CHELSIE RAHMADHINI NOER (An infant by her next friend Hoesni Syabil Noer
FIRST APPLICANT

IMAM ATA ULLAH IBNU SYABIL NOER (An Infant by his next friend Hoesni Syabil Noer)
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 JUNE 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT:

1.        Orders that the proceedings be dismissed.

2.        Orders the next friend of the applicants pay the respondents’ costs.

3.Directs that any application for leave to appeal from Orders 1 and 2 be listed at the same time as the applications for leave to appeal in proceeding NSD305 of 2005.

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

NSD700 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

VIRISETA VULA TALEI MARAWA (An infant by her next best friend Adi Bera Maramnivula Marawa)
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

NSD668 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

CHELSIE RAHMADHINI NOER (An infant by her next friend Hoesni Syabil Noer
FIRST APPLICANT

IMAM ATA ULLAH IBNU SYABIL NOER (An Infant by his next friend Hoesni Syabil Noer)
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

22 JUNE 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In these two proceedings, the applicants are infants and the proceedings have been brought by the next friend of the respective applicants.  In the proceedings, declarations are sought concerning the validity of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) (‘the Act’) together with declarations that the applicants have acquired Australian citizenship.

2. It is common ground that each proceeding raises precisely the same legal question as was raised on behalf of similar applicants in nine other proceedings, Nos 305, 306, 307, 339, 350, 364, 408, 446 and 542 of 2005.  In those proceedings, I made orders for summary dismissal for reasons that I gave on 4 May 2005 - see Doumit v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 666. To the extent that leave is necessary to appeal from the orders that I have made in those proceedings, application for leave has been made and has been the subject of directions by Moore J as the Appeals List Judge.

3. Motions have been filed by the respondents in these proceedings seeking summary dismissal on the same grounds.  It was suggested, at one stage, that the appropriate course might be to adjourn the hearing of the motions.  However, it seems to me that the more appropriate course is to deal with these motions, having regard to the view that I have already expressed.  My view is that both of these proceedings should be dismissed summarily.  The appropriate course would be for any application for leave to appeal from such summary dismissal orders be dealt with at the same time as the applications in the other nine matters.

4. Accordingly, for the reasons that I gave on 4 May 2005, I propose to order that each of the proceedings be dismissed with costs.  I will direct that any application for leave to appeal from my orders be listed at the same time as the applications for leave to appeal in the other nine proceedings, which I have identified.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett .

Associate:

Dated:             22 July 2005

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms M. Byers
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	22 June 2005
Date of Judgment:	22 June 2005