S1752 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

Case [2004] FCA 870

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1752 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 870

S1752 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N2382 OF 2003

S1756 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N2386 OF 2003

S1056 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N2693 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

N2382 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1752 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 rule 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules does not apply. 

2.        The application for an order nisi be refused. 

3.        The applicant pay the Minister’s costs of the proceedings.

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

N2386 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1756 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 rule 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules does not apply. 

2.        The application for an order nisi be refused. 

3.        The applicant pay the Minister’s costs of the proceedings.

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

N2693 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1056 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 rule 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules does not apply. 

2.        The application for an order nisi be refused. 

3.        The applicant pay the Minister’s costs of the proceedings.

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

N2382 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1752 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

N2386 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1756 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

N2693 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

S1056 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. Proceeding numbers N2382 of 2003, N2386 of 2003 and N2693 of 2003 were commenced in the High Court of Australia in May 2003, by the filing of an affidavit by the solicitor for the applicant, Mr Jyoti Bharati, together with a draft order nisi.  The affidavit annexes copies of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’) and the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) refusing and confirming the decision to refuse protection visas.

  2. The affidavit discloses no evidence to support any of the relief claimed in the draft order nisi.  Following remitter of the proceedings to this Court, no further step has been taken by the applicants to endeavour to demonstrate a cause of action.  Each of the matters is before me for callover today.  Mr Bharati indicated that he required further time to get instructions.  He was unable to indicate what would happen during that time or the nature of any evidence that was likely to be filed.

  3. The Minister asks that the application for order nisi be dealt with today.  In the circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to accede to the Minister’s request. 

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: Jyoti Bharati
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 30 April 2004
Date of Judgment: 30 April 2004
Details
AGLC
S1752 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 870
Case
[2004] FCA 870
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the Federal Court, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant, who had applied for refugee status, was dissatisfied with the outcome of the Tribunal's decision and sought to challenge its validity. The legal issues before the Court included whether the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the applicable law, whether there were procedural irregularities, and whether the decision was unreasonable.

The Court examined the application and found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of the case to warrant the grant of an order nisi. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was not flawed and that the applicant had not established any errors in law or procedure that would warrant the Court intervening. The Court found that the decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and the applicable law, and that there were no grounds for the Court to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

As a result, the Court refused the application for an order nisi and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs of the proceedings. The Court held that the application was not well-founded and that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the Court to grant the relief sought. The Court emphasised the importance of the proper functioning of the Tribunal and the need to ensure that the Court only intervenes in cases where there are clear and compelling grounds for doing so.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

2. The application for an order nisi be refused.

3. The applicant pay the Minister’s costs of the proceedings.

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.