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

[2002] FCA 776

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NADL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 776

APPLICANT NADL OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 155 OF 2002

STONE J
20 JUNE 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 155 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT NADL OF 2002 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 JUNE 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

3.The applicant has liberty to apply to set aside the above orders within 3 days.

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 155 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT NADL OF 2002 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	20 JUNE 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, made on 5 February 2002, affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. On 11 June 2002, I dismissed the application with costs pursuant to O 32 r 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules. I also gave the applicant liberty to apply within 3 days to have the order set aside. These are the reasons for those orders.

2. The applicant was notified of the hearing by a letter dated 4 April 2002. Written submissions were filed by the applicant on 3 June 2002 in accordance with directions made on 21 March 2002. The applicant did not appear when the matter was called at the time appointed for the hearing. No message was received from the applicant explaining his failure to appear. I am satisfied that the applicant has been on notice of the hearing and was given a proper opportunity to appear.

3. I have also considered the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal and the grounds which have been put forward to support the application for review. The applicant’s case does not appear to be a strong one, especially in light of the amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) which effectively limit the grounds of judicial review.

4. For these reasons I acceded to the respondent’s request that the application be dismissed with costs under O 32 r 2(1)(c). I also granted the applicant liberty to apply within 3 days to have the order set aside. The right of an applicant to have an order made in their absence set aside applies automatically under O 35 r 7. However, given that the applicant was not represented and counsel for the respondent did not object, the right to have the orders set aside was explicitly stated.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone.

Associate:

Dated:             20 June 2002

Counsel for the Applicant:	No appearance
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	11 June 2002
Date of Order:	11 June 2002
Date of Judgment:	20 June 2002