NADQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[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