FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
S1729 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1775
S1729 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR
N2089 OF 2003
EMMETT J
23 APRIL 2004
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N2089 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
S1729 OF 2003
APPLICANTAND:
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENTMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 APRIL 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
(1)The motion be dismissed.
(2) The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the motion.
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
N2089 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
S1729 OF 2003
APPLICANTAND:
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENTMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
23 APRIL 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter on 20 February 2004 I ordered that the application for orders nisi be refused for reasons that I delivered on that day. The applicant has now filed a motion seeking that the proceeding dismissed on 20 February 2004 be reinstated. I do not know what the applicant means by asking that the proceeding be ‘reinstated’. No good reason has been advanced as to why I should reconsider the order that I made after full argument on 20 February 2004.
The affidavit filed in support of the motion is misleading in that it suggests that the matter was disposed of by consent. I consider that this motion is quite misconceived and should be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate:
Dated: 25 January 2005
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr T Silva Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Markus Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 23 April 2004 Date of Judgment: 23 April 204
- AGLC
- S1729 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1775
- Case
- [2004] FCA 1775
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the tribunal's decision was legally sound and whether there were any errors in the tribunal's process or application of the law. The applicant argued that the tribunal had misapplied the law and made errors in its assessment of the facts. The central focus was on the interpretation and application of the definition of a refugee under the applicable legislation, and whether the tribunal's conclusions were supported by the evidence.
The court examined the tribunal's decision meticulously, considering the evidence presented and the tribunal's reasoning. It found that the tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and had made findings based on the evidence provided. The court held that the tribunal's decision was not flawed and there were no errors of law or fact. Consequently, the motion for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent, which was the tribunal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The motion be dismissed.
(2) The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the motion.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: EMMETT J
Full text does not contain this section.