NBJZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 376

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NBJZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 376

NBJZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1892 of 2004

WILCOX J
31 MARCH 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1892 of 2004

BETWEEN:	NBJZ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	31 MARCH 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The proceeding be dismissed.

2.The applicant in the principal proceeding pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

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	NSD 1892 of 2004

BETWEEN:	NBJZ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	31 MARCH 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. The matter before the Court is a notice of motion filed by the respondent to the principal proceeding, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  The notice of motion seeks dismissal of the application, pursuant to Order 20, Rule 2(1)(a) and Order 54B, Rule 5 of the Federal Court Rules, on the ground that no reasonable basis for the application is disclosed.

2. There was a directions hearing on 15 February 2005.  The applicant attended on that occasion.  There was discussion about the form of the application that he had filed.  It lacked any particulars of the grounds of the proceeding.  I directed that an amended application be filed not later than 4 pm on Wednesday, 23 February, and I adjourned the matter for further directions on 25 February.  The applicant did file an amended application, however it contains no real information as to his grounds.

3. On 25 February 2005, a solicitor appearing for the Minister indicated a desire to file a notice of motion for summary dismissal.  I granted leave for such a motion to be made returnable this morning.  I suggested to the applicant in the principal proceeding that he consider his position and, in particular, whether he wished to improve on the form of the amended application.  I recommended he obtain some legal advice.

4. When the matter was called today, the applicant in the principal proceeding did not appear.  Apparently he contacted the office of the solicitor for the respondent and indicated he was unlikely to appear today.

5. The amended application fails to identify, in a meaningful way, any jurisdictional error.  Bland statements are made such as "Error within jurisdiction of law" and "Denied access to nature of justice".  These statements are meaningless without particularisation, and the applicant has failed to provide that particularisation.

6. The third ground raised by the amended application is a claim that the applicant was unable to attend and give oral evidence at the hearing conducted by the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) ‘due to unforeseen events occurring on the way to RRT’.  No information has been given about the events.  The claim seems to be an afterthought.  The applicant had the opportunity of giving evidence before the Tribunal but failed to attend the hearing.  He made no subsequent application to the Tribunal for the opportunity of giving oral evidence and provided no explanation for his non-attendance.

7. The fourth ground suggests that the Tribunal accused the applicant of making false statements without giving him an opportunity to clarify these statements.  The oral hearing was his opportunity for clarification.

8. I have carefully read the decision of the Tribunal.  It seems to me no jurisdictional error is revealed.  I think the applicant's proceeding fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action.  This is a case for invocation of Order 20, Rule 2A of the Federal Court Rules. I apply that rule in ordering that the principal proceeding is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             12 April 2005

There was no appearance for the Applicant.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	31 March 2005
Date of Judgment:	31 March 2005