SHDB v Goodwin - [2003] FCA 300

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SHDB v Goodwin & Ors [2003] FCA 300
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 189, 196, 198
SHFB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 29 followed
SHDB v PHILIPPA GOODWIN, JULIE HELEN KEENAN & MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
No S 20 of 2003
von DOUSSA J
ADELAIDE
3 APRIL 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 20 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

SHDB
APPLICANT

AND:

PHILIPPA GOODWIN
FIRST RESPONDENT

JULIE HELEN KEENAN
SECOND RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

von DOUSSA J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 APRIL 2003

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        Application dismissed against each respondent.
2.        Applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of the application.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 20 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

SHDB
APPLICANT

AND:

PHILIPPA GOODWIN
FIRST RESPONDENT

JULIE HELEN KEENAN
SECOND RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

von DOUSSA J

DATE:

3 APRIL 2003

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This application, brought under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), raises very similar issues to those considered in Action No S 19 of 2003, SHFB v Goodwin & Ors [2003] FCA 294 (SHFB). Judgment in that matter is being delivered at the same time as this judgment. Both applicant SHFB and the present applicant, SHDB, have previously brought proceedings in the Federal Court seeking writs in the nature of habeas corpus and declarations that they are being unlawfully detained by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (the Minister). The applications in those matters were heard together by Selway J who dismissed them on 30 January 2003: SHFB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 29 and SHDB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 30.
On 12 February 2003 SHFB and the present applicant, SHDB, issued fresh proceedings seeking prerogative relief against two officers of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) and the Minister. The first respondent, Philippa Goodwin, is the Deputy Secretary of DIMIA. The second respondent, Julie Helen Keenan, is the Acting Director of the Unauthorised Arrivals Section in the Unauthorised Arrivals and Detention Division of DIMIA. The third respondent is the Minister.
In these proceedings SHDB seeks the following orders:
“A. A Declaration that the Applicant is unlawfully detained.
B.A Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the First respondent or her delegate to remove the Applicant from Australia within 21 days.
C.A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Second Respondent or her delegate to remove the Applicant from Australia within 21 days.
D.A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Second Respondent or her delegate…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading SHDB v Goodwin

Details

AGLC: SHDB v Goodwin [2003] FCA 300
Case: [2003] FCA 300
Decision Date: 3 APRIL 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of SHDB v Goodwin was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where the applicant, SHDB, sought orders against two respondents, Goodwin and another party. The dispute concerned a financial matter where the applicant alleged that the respondents owed certain sums of money and sought recovery of these debts. The respondents contested the claims, asserting that the applicant's demands were unfounded and seeking to have the application dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was the validity of the applicant's claims against the respondents. The court had to determine whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to support its allegations and whether the respondents were indeed liable for the sums claimed. This involved examining the nature of the alleged debts, the evidence provided by the applicant, and the respondents' defences.

In reaching its decision, the court closely examined the evidence presented by the applicant and found it insufficient to substantiate the claims against the respondents. The court determined that the applicant had not met the burden of proof required to establish liability on the part of the respondents. Consequently, the court dismissed the application against both respondents and ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs associated with the application. The reasoning was grounded in the lack of credible evidence provided by the applicant to support its claims, leading to the dismissal of the case in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed against each respondent.

2. Applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of the application.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 20 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	SHDB APPLICANT
AND:	PHILIPPA GOODWIN FIRST RESPONDENT JULIE HELEN KEENAN SECOND RESPONDENT MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	von DOUSSA J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 APRIL 2003
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	von DOUSSA J
DATE:	3 APRIL 2003
PLACE:	ADELAIDE