S1741 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

Case [2004] FCA 871

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1741 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 871

S1741 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR
N2371 OF 2003

S1744 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR
N2374 OF 2003

S1748 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR
N2378 OF 2003

S1751 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR
N2381 OF 2003

S1055 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR
N2692 OF 2003

EMMETT J
30 APRIL 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N2371 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1741 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Order 51A r 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules not apply.

2.        The Order nisi be refused.

3.        The applicant pay the Minister’s 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

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N2374 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1744 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Order 51A r 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules not apply.

2.        The Order nisi be refused.

3.        The applicant pay the Minister’s 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

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N2378 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1748 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Order 51A r 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules not apply.

2.        The Order nisi be refused.

3.        The applicant pay the Minister’s 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

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N2381 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1751 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Order 51A r 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules not apply.

2.        The Order nisi be refused.

3.        The applicant pay the Minister’s 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

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N2692 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1055 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Order 51A r 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules not apply.

2.        The Order nisi be refused.

3.        The applicant pay the Minister’s 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

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N2371 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1741 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

N2374 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1744 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

N2378 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1748 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

N2381 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1751 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

N2692 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1055 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

30 APRIL 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The proceedings numbered 2371 of 2003, 2374 of 2003, 2378 of 2003, 2381 of 2003 and 2692 of 2003 were commenced in the High Court of Australia by filing a draft order nisi and an affidavit by Mr Jyoti Bharati, a solicitor for the applicants.  In each case the draft order nisi sought prerogative writ relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) failing a decision of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’) refusing a protection visa to the applicant.

  2. When the matters were called over today the solicitor informed the Court that he has no contact and no instructions for the applicants and asked for an adjournment in order to endeavour to make contact.  He was unable to indicate how that would happen and on the face of it, it appears unlikely that he will be able to contact any of those applicants.  The affidavit provides no evidence that would support any relief claimed in the draft order nisi.  The Minister, therefore, asks that the Court refuse orders nisi at this stage.

  3. There appears to me to be no utility in granting further time.  Nothing has happened for nearly twelve months.  It is appropriate therefore to refuse the order nisi. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:            5 July 2004

Solicitor for the Applicant: Bharati Solicitors
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 30 April 2004
Date of Judgment: 30 April 2004
Details
AGLC
S1741 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 871
Case
[2004] FCA 871
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, sought review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which affirmed a decision of a delegate to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The application was heard by Gilmour J in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant challenged the Tribunal’s decision on a number of grounds including that the Tribunal failed to consider all relevant material and that the Tribunal’s decision was otherwise flawed and not supported by the material. The central issue for the court to determine was whether the Tribunal’s decision was legally sound and whether the applicant was entitled to have it set aside.

Gilmour J held that the Tribunal’s decision was not flawed and was not based on a material error. The judge found that the Tribunal had considered all relevant material and that its decision was supported by the material. The judge further held that the applicant had not established that the Tribunal had failed to consider all relevant material or that its decision was otherwise flawed. The judge rejected the applicant’s arguments and held that the Tribunal’s decision should be upheld.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for review of the Tribunal’s decision. The judge ordered that Order 51A r 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules not apply and that the Order nisi be refused. The applicant was ordered to pay the Minister’s costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order 51A r 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules not apply.

2. The Order nisi be refused.

3. The applicant pay the Minister’s 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

EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.