NABC of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 1426

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NABC of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1426

APPLICANT NABC OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 445 of 2002

WHITLAM J
13 NOVEMBER 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 445 of 2002

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT NABC of 2002 APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 NOVEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application to vacate the hearing date is refused.

2.   The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion today.

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	N 445 of 2002

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT NABC of 2002 APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	13 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an adjournment of a hearing fixed for 25 November 2002.  The appeal is from a judgment of Gyles J given on 30 April 2002 dealing with a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 19 December 2001.  It was fixed for hearing in the regular course at call-over.  The notice of appeal contains no proper grounds. 

2. The affidavit in support of the application contains no arguable grounds for an adjournment, save that the appellant has no money and wishes to be represented by a barrister.  The appellant has told me in his address that the affidavit was prepared by a migration agent.  He has repeated his desire to obtain legal representation.  For that purpose he tells me from the bar table that he has requested some money from his father in Bangladesh.  It is undoubtedly a misfortune for anybody to have to conduct his or her own case because they cannot afford to engage a lawyer.  However, I have no evidence before me which would indicate that vacating the hearing date on 25 November 2002 would make it likely that in the foreseeable future a date could be fixed at which time the appellant would have obtained legal representation.

3. Accordingly, there is no ground made out for vacating the hearing date and the application is refused with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:            20 November 2002

Appellant appeared in person.

Solicitors for the respondent:	Mr Rohan White of Sparke Helmore
Date of hearing:	13 November 2002
Date of judgment:	13 November 2002