NADQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2002] FCA 483

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NADQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 483

NADQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 1678 OF 2001

EMMETT J
15 APRIL 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1678 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

NADQ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 APRIL 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        the applicant’s motion for an adjournment be refused.

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 1678 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

NADQ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

15 APRIL 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. When the matter was called on for hearing today the applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing of the case.  He said from the bar table that he has instructed a firm of solicitors in Queensland to represent him but that they were unable to attend Court today.  The matter was last before me on 25 March 2002 when the matter was fixed for hearing today.  On that occasion, the applicant said that he wished to have the matter adjourned.  I adjourned the matter on that occasion to today and indicated that the matter would definitely be heard today.

  2. In the absence of any explanation as to why the applicant is not ready to proceed today other than that his solicitor needed some more time, I do not consider that this is an appropriate case for an adjournment.  The matter was commenced on 24 December 2001 and the applicant has had ample time to arrange representation.  He says from the bar table that he was given some assistance under the pro bono scheme but that shortly before the last date for hearing he was told that those engaged under the pro bono scheme would not represent him.  One may be able to draw some inference in relation to that but I will not decide the case on that basis. 

  3. I have read the reasons of the Tribunal.  The notice of appeal does not raise any question of law and does not, on its face, suggest any ground that is likely to have a substantial prospect of success.  In the circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate to deal with the matter today.  Accordingly, I reject the application for an adjournment.

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

Associate:

Dated:             18 April 2002

Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G. Johnson
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 15 April 2002
Date of Judgment: 15 April 2002
Details
AGLC
NADQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 483
Case
[2002] FCA 483
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the applicant, NADQ, who sought an adjournment in their application for review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The dispute centred around the applicant's request for an adjournment due to the late filing of a document, which was claimed to contain new evidence. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issue for the court to decide was whether the late filing of a document by the applicant, which purportedly contained new evidence, warranted an adjournment of the proceedings. The court had to assess the circumstances of the late filing, the content of the document, and whether the delay in filing was justified or whether it would unduly prejudice the respondent.

The court held that the principles of natural justice required that a party not be allowed to introduce new evidence at a late stage unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the delay. In this case, the court found that the document was not new evidence but rather a reiteration of points already made in earlier submissions. Furthermore, the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify the late filing. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. Consequently, the court refused the applicant's motion for an adjournment. The court's decision was based on the principle that the introduction of new evidence at a late stage should not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances, and in this case, such circumstances were not present.

The Federal Court's ruling was that the applicant's motion for an adjournment was to be refused. The court underscored the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines and the principle that new evidence should not be introduced late unless there are exceptional circumstances. In this instance, the applicant had not provided any justification for the late filing, and the document did not contain new evidence. The court's decision was in line with the principles of natural justice and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the applicant’s motion for an adjournment be refused.

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

EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.