S253 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

Case [2004] FCA 907

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S253 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 907

S253 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

N1057 OF 2003

EMMETT J
30 APRIL 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N1057 OF 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANTS S253 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 application for an order nisi be refused.

3.        The applicants pay the Minister’s costs of the proceeding to date.

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

N1057 OF 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

S253 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. On 30 May 2003 the applicants filed a draft order nisi and an affidavit in the High Court of Australia seeking constitutional writ relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’) to refuse protection visas to the applicants.  The matter was subsequently remitted to this Court by the High Court.  The affidavit in support of the relief claimed in the draft order nisi takes issue with the merits of the decision of the Tribunal.

  2. For example, the affidavit states that the applicants vehemently object to the manner in which the Tribunal made its decision when it found that the applicants’ village, the adjacent areas, were attacked by the LTTE.  The affidavit refers to what are described as serious misdirections by the Tribunal in its findings.  The grounds stated in the draft order nisi are that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, that it erred in law and had bad faith towards the applicants.

  3. There was no evidence at all to support those grounds in the affidavit.  In the circumstances I consider that it is appropriate to refuse an order nisi.  It would be open to the applicants, if they wish, to commence some other proceeding, supported by appropriate evidence, seeking prerogative writ relief in respect of the decision of the Tribunal if they are so advised. 

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:            12 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
S253 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 907
Case
[2004] FCA 907
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of S253 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal involved a dispute concerning the validity of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicants, who were seeking refugee status, challenged the Tribunal's decision which had dismissed their claims for protection. The applicants argued that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of their claims and sought judicial review of the decision.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had exercised its powers in a legally sound manner, and whether it had made any errors in its assessment of the applicants' claims. The applicants contended that the Tribunal had failed to properly consider relevant evidence and had misapplied the law in reaching its decision. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, who was defending the Tribunal's decision, argued that the Tribunal had exercised its powers correctly and that its decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and the law.

The court found that the Tribunal had exercised its powers correctly and had not erred in its assessment of the applicants' claims. The court held that the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence and had applied the correct legal principles in reaching its decision. The court also found that the applicants' arguments challenging the Tribunal's decision were without merit. As a result, the court refused the application for an order nisi and ordered the applicants to pay the Minister's costs of the proceeding to date.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

2. The application for an order nisi be refused.

3. The applicants pay the Minister’s costs of the proceeding to date.

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.