Musa v Ministry of Transport

Case [2005] FCA 1130

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Musa v Ministry of Transport [2005] FCA 1130

AHMED MUSA v MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
NSD 1169 of 2005

WILCOX J
5 AUGUST 2005
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1169 of 2005

BETWEEN:

AHMED MUSA
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 AUGUST 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Pursuant to Order 10, rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules, the application be dismissed.

AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

2.No application to set aside this order is to be filed unless it is accompanied by an amended notice of appeal identifying, with precision, a question of law arising out of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in relation to which the applicant will contend that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred.

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

NSD 1169 of 2005

BETWEEN:

AHMED MUSA
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX J

DATE:

5 AUGUST 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

  1. This matter was listed for a directions hearing at 9.30 am today.  It is now 10.05am.  I held the matter in the list in case Mr Musa was late.  He still has not appeared, despite the fact that his name has been called outside the court.  The solicitor acting for the respondent, Mr I McLachlan, has heard nothing from Mr Musa.  I am not aware of any message being received by anybody in the Court.  There being no explanation of the non-appearance of the applicant, it is appropriate for the application to be dismissed pursuant to Order 10, rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules.

  2. If Mr Musa seeks to reinstate the matter, this should only be on the basis that he identifies a question of law arising out of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision.  The documents currently filed do not reveal any question of law. 

  3. Pursuant to Order 10, rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules, I order that the application be dismissed with costs.  No application to set aside this order is to be filed unless it is accompanied by an amended notice of appeal identifying, with precision, a question of law arising out of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in relation to which the appellant will contend that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:  18[1] August 2005

[1]

There was no appearance for the Applicant
Solicitors for the Respondent: Smyth & Mallam Solicitors
Date of Hearing: 5 August 2005
Date of Judgment: 5 August 2005

Details
AGLC
Musa v Ministry of Transport [2005] FCA 1130
Case
[2005] FCA 1130
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Musa has brought an application against the Ministry of Transport in a bid to appeal against a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal had previously dismissed Musa’s appeal against a decision of the Ministry of Transport to revoke his driver’s licence. Musa contends that the Tribunal erred in its decision and seeks to appeal the Tribunal’s decision to the Federal Court. The central issue before the court was whether Musa's application for leave to appeal the Tribunal’s decision was valid and in compliance with the relevant rules and procedures.

The court considered whether the application complied with the requirements of Order 10, rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules, which governs the process for appealing decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Federal Court. The court noted that the application did not specify a question of law on which the Tribunal was alleged to have erred. Instead, it merely stated that the Tribunal’s decision was wrong. The court held that this was insufficient, as the applicant must clearly identify the question of law on which the Tribunal was alleged to have erred. The court concluded that the application did not meet the requirements of Order 10, rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules, and dismissed the application.

The court further directed that no application to set aside this order could be filed unless it was accompanied by an amended notice of appeal identifying, with precision, a question of law arising out of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in relation to which the applicant will contend that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred. The court dismissed the application and directed that no further applications to set aside the order could be filed unless the applicant complied with the court's direction.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to Order 10, rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules, the application be dismissed.

AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

2. No application to set aside this order is to be filed unless it is accompanied by an amended notice of appeal identifying, with precision, a question of law arising out of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in relation to which the applicant will contend that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

WILCOX J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WILCOX J

Full text does not contain this section.