Pally v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1598

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pally v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1598

BUGARI MUNEER MALAYAM PALLY v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N67 OF 2001

SHAJI MON v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N68 OF 2001

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
1 NOVEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N67 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	BUGARI MUNEER MALAYAM PALLY APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
N68 of 2001
BETWEEN:	SHAJI MON APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 NOVEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The applications be dismissed.

2.The applicants pay the respondent’s costs of investigating the question of service and assisting the Court in reaching a conclusion on this issue.

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	N67 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	BUGARI MUNEER MALAYAM PALLY APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
N68 OF 2001
BETWEEN:	SHAJI MON APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	1 NOVEMBER 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter involves an unfortunate situation.  We are left with the bare fact, however, that the available evidence which we have looked at over the last few weeks, and which is on the record, indicates that the applications for review were lodged out of time.  There is no power in the Court to extend the time.  Accordingly, the order of the Court is that the applications be dismissed.

2. In the circumstances, I do not think that it is appropriate for a general order for costs to be made. This is a case where, although there was a failure to have the applications lodged within the period specified, this situation appears to have occurred through no fault at all of the applicants themselves, who appear to have signed the documents within the relevant time

3. I will not order that there be any general costs order in this case.  However, I do consider that because the respondent has taken steps and prepared affidavits in relation to the question of service, the respondent should have the costs incurred in relation to those investigations and the preparation of that material to put before the Court because it has assisted the Court to reach a conclusion in these matters.

4. Accordingly, both matters are dismissed.  There is no order as to general costs but the costs that I have already referred to shall be borne by the applicants in each case; that is, the limited costs of investigating the question of service, including the serving of subpoenas and the preparation of affidavits in relation to this issue.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:             9 November 2001

Counsel for the Respondent:	S Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	1 November 2001
Date of Judgment:	1 November 2001