NABE v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 473

[2005] HCATrans 473

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth  No P70 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

NABE

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Summons

GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM ADELAIDE AND PERTH BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON MONDAY, 1 AUGUST 2005, AT 4.23 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR P.C. CHARMAN:   Your Honour, I appear for the applicant in Adelaide.  (instructed by Refugee Advocacy Service of South Australia Inc)

MR P.R. MACLIVER:   Your Honour, I appear for the respondent in Perth.  (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:   Can you hear one another?

MR CHARMAN:   Yes.  I can hear Mr Macliver from Adelaide, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Can he hear you?

MR MACLIVER:   Likewise, your Honour.  I can hear my learned friend from Adelaide.

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you.  Now, Mr Charman, you have a summons filed on 9 June seeking an order under rule 41.13.  I have read the affidavit of Mr Ower sworn 6 June and the respondent’s outline of submissions from Mr Macliver dated 28 July.  Is there anything you want to say further to those written submissions, Mr Macliver?

MR MACLIVER:   No, your Honour.  I am content to rely on those, thank you.

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you.  Is there anything else you want to say, Mr Charman?

MR CHARMAN:   Your Honour, I do not know to what extent you wish me to address you on the aspects of the delay or the ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   No, I have digested all of that.  I would be minded to make order 1 in the summons.  The question then is what is the time required for enlargement under 41.09.11, 21 days from today or how much longer do you need?

MR CHARMAN:   Your Honour, 28 days, simply so we would have time to talk to the Registrar, if we could.  We have not received a draft index yet.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Would 28 days be sufficient?

MR CHARMAN:   Yes, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   And costs of the summons should be costs of the special leave application, I should think.

MR CHARMAN:   Yes, your Honour, that would certainly be our position.

HIS HONOUR:   Do you say anything in response to that, Mr Macliver, on the question of costs?

MR MACLIVER:   No, your Honour, I am content for costs to be costs in the special leave application.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, I think that is the best thing to do.  So I make order 1 on the summons filed 9 June and I extend until and including 29 August 2005 the time for compliance by the applicant with rule 41.09.11 and costs of the summons will be costs of the leave application. 

Is there anything else, gentlemen?

MR CHARMAN:   Your Honour, from Adelaide, Mr Ower just wishes to pass on his apologies to the Court and the respondent in relation to this matter.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  The Court is greatly assisted by the provision of counsel in these matters and this is no exception.  Very well, then I make those orders and the Court will now adjourn.

AT 4.28 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED