NAMJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 1622

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAMJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCA 1622

NAMJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N1528 OF 2003

EMMETT J
19 DECEMBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1528 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NAMJ APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 DECEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.the appeal be dismissed for want of compliance with directions pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth);

2.Order 1 be stayed up to and including 18 February 2004, conditional upon there being filed, no later than 9 January 2004, an amended notice of appeal setting out the grounds of appeal and the particulars of those grounds.

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	N1528 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NAMJ APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	19 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 29 October 2003, a direction was made that the appellant file and serve an amended notice of appeal setting out the grounds of appeal and the particulars of those grounds by 28 November 2003.  That direction was not complied with. By letter of 10 December 2003, the appellant was informed that the matter would be listed for directions before me today for the purpose of hearing the parties on the question of whether to make an order that the appeal be dismissed for failure to comply with a direction of the Court.

2. The appellant was assisted today by an interpreter and a friend, who indicated that there had been some attempt to get legal advice.  No other explanation was offered for the failure to comply with the direction.  The ground of the application to this Court, which was heard by Branson J, was that the appellant was unfit to take part in a hearing before the Refugee Review Tribunal and that, accordingly, he was denied procedural fairness. 

3. The ground of appeal in the notice of appeal filed on 10 October 2003 refers to the decisions of the High Court in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601. Those cases do not, on their face, have any bearing on the applicant’s situation and it was for that reason that the direction was given.

4. Nevertheless, having regard to the apparent difficulties of comprehension on the part of the appellant, I propose to extend the time for complying with the direction. 

5. The orders that I propose are that the appeal be dismissed for want of compliance with the direction, pursuant to s 25(2)B(bb) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). I propose that that order be stayed up to and including 18 February 2004, conditional upon there being filed, no later than 9 January 2004, an amended notice of appeal setting out the grounds of appeal and particulars of those grounds.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:             23 January 2004

Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter and a friend
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	19 December 2003
Date of Judgment:	19 December 2003