S382 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 670

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S382 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 670

S382 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ORS

N 2535 OF 2003

EMMETT J
9 FEBRUARY 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 2535 OF 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

S382 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

KIM ROSSER, MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 FEBRUARY 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 applicant pay the Minister’s costs.

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

N 2535 OF 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

S382 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

KIM ROSSER, MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

9 FEBRUARY 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 30 June 2003 the applicant filed in the High Court a draft order nisi and an affidavit sworn on 25 June 2003.  The proceeding was commenced for constitutional writ relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) made on 1 June 2000 affirming a decision not to grant a protection visa to the applicant and members of his family.   The matter was remitted to this Court by Heydon J on 12 November 2003.  The affidavit in support of the draft order nisi disclosed no basis upon which any relief could be granted. 

  2. When the matter was called on for directions today there was no appearance for the applicant.  In the circumstances I propose to refuse an order nisi and to order the applicant to pay the Minister’s costs.

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:            31 May 2004

Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 9 February 2004
Date of Judgment: 9 February 2004
Details
AGLC
S382 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 670
Case
[2004] FCA 670
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of S382 of 2003, an applicant, contested the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs over a decision related to the applicant's visa application. The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to refuse a visa, contending that the decision was flawed or unlawful.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the Minister's decision was legally sound, whether the applicant's rights under relevant legislative provisions were respected, and if the decision-making process adhered to procedural fairness. The applicant argued that the Minister failed to consider pertinent information and that the decision was unreasonable. The Minister contended that the decision was based on lawful grounds and that the applicant's arguments lacked merit.

The court examined the merits of the applicant's claims and the evidence presented. It concluded that the Minister's decision was not unlawful and was made in accordance with the applicable legislation and principles of natural justice. The court found that the Minister had appropriately considered the relevant factors and that the applicant's contentions did not establish a basis for setting aside the decision. The court ruled against the applicant, dismissing the application and ordering the applicant to pay the Minister's costs.

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 applicant pay the Minister’s costs.

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.