Legal Research
Cases
Re Batuwantudawa

Re Batuwantudawa

Link copied

Case Copied 2 June 2003 11 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Batuwantudawa, in the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari & Prohibition against Ruddock [2003] FCA 684
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION AGAINST THE HONOURABLE PHILIP RUDDOCK, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND MR DAVID THOMAS, SITTING AS THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND MS REGINA PERTON, IN HER CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL; EX PARTE SUMUDU CHETHANA BATUWANTUDAWA
V 199 of 2003
GRAY J
2 JUNE 2003
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 199 of 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

In the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition against:

AND:
EX PARTE:

THE HONOURABLE PHILIP M RUDDOCK, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

MR DAVID THOMAS, SITTING AS THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL & MS REGINA PERTON, IN HER CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

SUMUDU CHETHANA BATUWANTUDAWA
APPLICANT/PROSECUTOR

JUDGE:

GRAY J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 JUNE 2003

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for enlargement of the time limited by O 55 r 17 of the High Court

Rules to apply for a writ of certiorari be refused.

2.        The application be dismissed.
3.        The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 199 of 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

In the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition against:

EX PARTE:

THE HONOURABLE PHILIP M RUDDOCK, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
FIRST RESPONDENT

MR DAVID THOMAS, SITTING AS THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL & MS REGINA PERTON, IN HER CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

SUMUDU CHETHANA BATUWANTUDAWA
APPLICANT/PROSECUTOR

JUDGE:

GRAY J

DATE:

2 JUNE 2003

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This proceeding was remitted to this Court from the High Court of Australia by order made on 7 February 2003. It was listed for a directions hearing before Marshall J on 24 April 2003. On that date, Mr Knowles, the solicitor who has appeared before me today for the respondents, also appeared. There was no appearance on behalf of the applicant. His Honour made orders for the filing and service of a court book by the first respondent and for the fixing of another directions hearing before the docket judge. His Honour also reserved the costs of that directions hearing. The matter was then placed in my docket and a directions hearing was fixed for today.
The solicitors for the respondents then forwarded to the Court consent orders signed by them on behalf of the respondents and by the applicant. In order to determine whether I should make…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Batuwantudawa and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] FCA 684
Decision Date: 2 JUNE 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Batuwantudawa was heard by the High Court of Australia, where the applicant sought an extension of time to apply for a writ of certiorari. The applicant was seeking to quash a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Fiji, which had reversed an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji. The matter involved complex issues of jurisdiction and the recognition of foreign judgments, as well as the procedural rules governing applications for extensions of time within the High Court.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for an extension of time, and whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant such an extension under O 55 r 17 of the High Court Rules. The Court had to consider the principles governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the effect of the applicant's delay in making the application, and the impact of the extension on the respondents.

In delivering the judgment, the Court found that the applicant had failed to establish a sufficient basis for the extension of time. The Court noted that the application was made well beyond the prescribed time limits and that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court also considered the principle that the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments should be approached with caution, and that the Court should not lightly interfere with final judgments of competent courts. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the application should be dismissed, and that the applicant should bear the costs of the proceeding. The Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the need for a compelling justification when seeking extensions of time in the High Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for enlargement of the time limited by O 55 r 17 of the High Court

Rules to apply for a writ of certiorari be refused.

2. The application be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 199 of 2003

In the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition against:
AND: EX PARTE:	THE HONOURABLE PHILIP M RUDDOCK, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA FIRST RESPONDENT MR DAVID THOMAS, SITTING AS THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL & MS REGINA PERTON, IN HER CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT SUMUDU CHETHANA BATUWANTUDAWA APPLICANT/PROSECUTOR
JUDGE:	GRAY J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 JUNE 2003
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

In the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition against:
EX PARTE:	THE HONOURABLE PHILIP M RUDDOCK, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA FIRST RESPONDENT MR DAVID THOMAS, SITTING AS THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL & MS REGINA PERTON, IN HER CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT SUMUDU CHETHANA BATUWANTUDAWA APPLICANT/PROSECUTOR
JUDGE:	GRAY J
DATE:	2 JUNE 2003
PLACE:	MELBOURNE