FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZWIQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 503 |
| MIGRATION – Adjournment application refused – pro bono assistance and legal aid refused – significant delay – representation unlikely – protection visa – no error – application dismissed. |
| Judiciary Act 1903, s.39B Migration Act 1958, s.91S |
| VAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 255 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407 |
| Applicant: | MZWIQ |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | MLG 580 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | McInnis FM |
| Hearing date: | 22 March 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 22 March 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms H.M. Riley |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application filed 24 May 2004 be dismissed.
The Applicant shall pay the Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $6500.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 580 of 2004
| MZWIQ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
Adjournment application
In this matter the applicant has sought an adjournment of the proceedings and has done so on the basis that he requires more time to obtain legal assistance. He has indicated that he has applied for pro bono assistance through what I take to be the appropriate bar association, and that has been refused. He further indicates that he only received the court book in this matter on 15 December 2004, despite the fact that there were orders made that the court book be filed on 19 November 2004. It is not in issue that the filing and service of the court book was out of time. He has indicated that upon receipt of the court book that apart from seeking aid from a pro bono barrister, has otherwise applied for legal aid and has not received a favourable response. From the bar table he has advised me that he has sought assistance from the Sri Lankan community. It is indicated that he has been advised as recently as last Sunday that some assistance would be provided, according to the president of the appropriate organisation.
The application for adjournment is opposed. The respondent has pointed out the chronology of events which briefly, in this matter, reveal that the Refugee Review Tribunal (the RRT) decision is dated
4 April 1997. Without reciting the further chronology in detail, it is clear that once that decision is made affirming a decision of a delegate to refuse a protection visa, the applicant joined in what is described as the Muin/Lie class action in the High Court and did so on or about
8 November 1999. The applicant filed an application in the High Court on 22 May 2003 which was remitted to the Federal Court. The Federal Court, as I understand it, dismissed the application on 30 April 2004. The current application before…
Continue reading MZWIQ v Minister for Immigration
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- MZWIQ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 503
- Case
- [2005] FMCA 503
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues at the core of this case revolved around the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and the procedural fairness of the decision-making process. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Minister had failed to properly consider certain information and that the decision was therefore flawed. The court had to examine whether the Minister's decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair, given the statutory framework within which it was made.
The court found that the Minister's decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and was in accordance with the law. It was held that the Minister had exercised his discretion appropriately and had not failed to consider any relevant information. The court concluded that the decision was lawful and procedurally fair. Therefore, the application for judicial review was dismissed. As a result, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs, fixed at $6500.00.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application filed 24 May 2004 be dismissed.
2.
The Applicant shall pay the Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $6500.00.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.