NAVT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 1676

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAVT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1676

NAVT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N195 OF 2004

EMMETT J
17 MARCH 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N195 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:	NAVT APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 MARCH 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1.        The notice of appeal be treated as an application for leave to appeal.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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	N195 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:	NAVT APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	17 MARCH 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter a document entitled ‘Notice of Appeal’ was filed on 19 February 2004.  By this document the appellant purported to appeal from the whole of a judgment of Lindgren J given on 2 February 2004 (NAVT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 52). On that day his Honour dismissed an application pursuant to O 32 r 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules. In brief reasons given for taking that course his Honour indicated that the matter had been fixed for hearing before his Honour on 2 February 2004 pursuant to directions given on 8 October 2003.

2. On 8 October 2003 the applicant was present in Court, however, there was no appearance for the applicant when the matter was called on for hearing on 2 February 2004.  For that reason his Honour made the order to which I have just referred.  The order is clearly interlocutory and accordingly leave to appeal would be required.  It is appropriate to treat the document entitled ‘Notice of Appeal’ as an application for leave to appeal.  No submissions have been advanced on behalf of the purported appellant.  There was no appearance for the appellant when the matter was called on today.

3. In the circumstances it is appropriate that I make a direction that the Notice of Appeal be treated as an application for leave to appeal.  I order that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.  I order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.

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:             17 December 2004

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Houlton of Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	17 March 2004
Date of Judgment:	17 March 2004