S1811 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

Case [2004] FCA 866

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1811 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 866

S1811 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N2406 OF 2003

EMMETT J
30 APRIL 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N2406 OF 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

S1811 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
THIRD 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 to 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

N2406 OF 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

S1811 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

30 APRIL 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This matter was commenced by the filing of an affidavit and a draft order nisi in the High Court of Australia on 12 June 2003.  The proceeding was subsequently remitted to this Court by the High Court.  The applicant was originally represented by Brett Slater, solicitors, who have now withdrawn.  However, Mr Jayawardena has today appeared for the applicant indicating that he was instructed to do so as recently as yesterday.  Mr Jayawardena has asked for leave to file further evidence in support of the application.

  2. In the light of the recency of his instructions, he is unable to indicate precisely what further evidence would be adduced.  There is no indication from the applicant as to why the evidence had not been filed before today.  The affidavit as filed in the High Court does not, of itself, indicate grounds or evidence disclosing an arguable case for prerogative writ relief in respect of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) affirming a decision of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’) not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.

  3. In the circumstances, it appears to me to be appropriate to refuse the application for further time to file evidence.  If the applicant is so minded, a proper application can be made to this Court, or to the Federal Magistrates Court, seeking relief supported by appropriate evidence. 

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: Chandra Jayawardena
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 30 April 2004
Date of Judgment: 30 April 2004
Details
AGLC
S1811 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 866
Case
[2004] FCA 866
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court involved an application by a refugee applicant against a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant sought a judicial review of the Tribunal's decision, which had dismissed his application for a protection visa. The Tribunal had determined that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a refugee as defined under the Migration Act. The applicant contended that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the facts and in its application of the law.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the Tribunal had made an error of law in its assessment of the applicant's claims and whether the Tribunal's decision was so unreasonable as to be unjust. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had not properly considered certain evidence and had misinterpreted the applicable legal standards. The Minister, on the other hand, maintained that the Tribunal's decision was correct and well-founded on the evidence presented.

The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in law and had properly exercised its discretion in reaching its decision. The evidence presented to the Tribunal did not compel a different conclusion, and the Tribunal's reasons were rational and consistent with the applicable legal framework. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was not so unreasonable as to be unjust and dismissed the application for judicial review. Consequently, the application for an order nisi was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the Minister's costs of the proceeding.

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 to 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.