Plaintiff M119-2005 v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 65

[2006] HCATrans 065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M119 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

PLAINTIFF M119/2005

Plaintiff

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Defendant

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Defendant

Summons

CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON WEDNESDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2006, AT 9.35 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR C.J. HORAN:   If the Court pleases, I appear for the first defendant.  (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

HER HONOUR:   Is this in the same position?

MR HORAN:   It may be, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Perhaps I should have that matter called, too.

COURT OFFICER:   No appearance, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   I will stand it down, Mr Horan.

MR HORAN:   I should just say the only difference in this matter is that I am instructed a summons has not been filed by the defendant in this matter.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, very well.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
UNTIL LATER THE SAME DAY

UPON RESUMING AT 10.19 AM:

HER HONOUR:   Yes, Mr Horan.

MR HORAN:   As I mentioned earlier, your Honour, in this matter the first defendant has not filed a summons seeking dismissal.

HER HONOUR:   I have not, by the way, distinguished in making orders finally between refusing the extension of time of time and dismissing the proceedings, because I do not think it is necessary to do so, given that the text makes it plain each time that the application for extension of time has not been granted.

MR HORAN:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   But thank you for indicating that there is no separate summons.

MR HORAN:   I do not have as much detail on the history of this matter other than that the Tribunal decision was in July 2003.  The file was transferred to my instructors recently, and that is one of the reasons why the plaintiff has not been filed with a summons as in the other matters.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR HORAN:   I note from the plaintiff’s outline of submissions that the position of the plaintiff in that outline is that the matter should be remitted.  I would submit that it is a matter for the Court, but that if the matter is not to be dismissed today, that perhaps it would be preferable for it to be relisted at a subsequent directions date rather than remitted and then dealt with below.  I understand there have been previous proceedings in this matter, but I do not have details as to when and what nature they took.

HER HONOUR:   Well, something would turn on what precisely your application is today, whether ‑ ‑ ‑

MR HORAN:   Yes.  Well, I do not have an application as such.

HER HONOUR:   To dismiss summarily?

MR HORAN:   No.  So the plaintiff of course requires an extension of time of time to proceed further and is not here to put submissions to your Honour as to why time should be extended, and it may be, on one view ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Maybe the best course is simply to adjourn this matter for the next directions date, and I will make an inquiry about whether that has already been determined, and make no other orders.

MR HORAN:   Yes, your Honour, I think that would be best.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, that is probably the best course.  Well, a date has not been determined but what I will do is adjourn matter No M119 of 2005 until the next directions date, with no other orders.

MR HORAN:   If the Court pleases.

HER HONOUR:   Thank you.

AT 10.22 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED