MIP, Ex parte.doc- Re Hudson - [1999] HCATrans 67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M30 of 1999

In the matter of -
An application for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition and Orders of Mandamus against THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

DR RORY HUDSON (who constituted the Refugee Review Tribunal which determined RRT reference V97/0512 on 25 November 1997)
Second Respondent

Ex parte -
"M I P"

Prosecutor/Applicant

HAYNE J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON MONDAY, 29 MARCH 1999, AT 2.15 PM

(Continued from 17/3/99)

MR T.V. HURLEY: If it please your Honour, I continue to appear on behalf of the prosecutor/applicant. (instructed by Victoria Legal Aid)

MR C. GUNST, QC: If your Honour pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR W.S. MOSLEY, on behalf of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor). May we also indicate, your Honour, that the third respondent, the proposed third respondent in our learned friend’s new proposed order, the principal member of the Refugee Review Tribunal indicates that he will take no part in the proceeding but abide any order that the Court might make save as to costs.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Gunst. Now, Mr Hurley, the material that I have looked at thus far since the last hearing on 17 March has principally been that filed on behalf of the respondents. I have looked at, although only briefly, the material filed in support of the application. Can you tell me what course you say I should now take for the further disposition of the proceeding?

MR HURLEY: Your Honour, it is our submission that your Honour should find that an order nisi should issue against the three respondents in the proposed draft order that was filed last Monday, and then adjourn my client’s application for remitter of the further proceedings in that pending the decision of this Court in the matters reserved before it of Abebe and Eshetu.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Why should I adjourn it?

MR HURLEY: Because, your Honour, it is an unresolved question as to whether the Federal Court – we submit the Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter and the dispute between the parties under section 44(1) of the Judiciary Act but the validity of that submission is, itself, reserved before this Court. If your Honour remitted it and it was discovered the Federal Court did not have that jurisdiction, then the proceeding would presumably have to be recommenced in this Court again. We therefore submit it is convenient that the matter remain here pending the decision in Abebe and Eshetu.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. I am just looking at the draft order nisi. The draft you have gives only the one ground, does it not?

MR HURLEY: It does, your Honour. There were two agitated previously but only one ground is now pursued.

HIS HONOUR: Is that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading MIP, Ex parte.doc- Re Hudson

Details

AGLC: MIP, Ex parte.doc- Re Hudson [1999] HCATrans 67
Case: [1999] HCATrans 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by MIP for an order that a document, referred to as the "Hudson document," be produced for inspection. The application was made to Hayne J, sitting in chambers. The precise nature of the dispute and the relationship between MIP and the party from whom production was sought are not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether MIP was entitled to production of the Hudson document. This involved considering the principles governing the discovery of documents, particularly in circumstances where a party seeks access to a document that may be relevant to their case.

Hayne J's reasoning and the legal principles applied are not detailed in the provided text. The outcome of the application is also not stated.

Orders