Suitela v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 698

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Suitela v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 698

AUDREY SUITELA & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS, MEMBER, MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL & PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

No S 201 of 2003

FINN J
8 JULY 2003
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 201 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

AUDREY SUITELA & ORS
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MEMBER, MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 JULY 2003

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicants pay the first respondent’s costs in the matter in the sum of $2,500.

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 201 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

AUDREY SUITELA & ORS
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MEMBER, MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE:	8 JULY 2003
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)

1. The originating application in this matter was made in the High Court, seeking judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal that affirmed a decision that found that the visa applicants were not entitled to the grant of Family and Other Close Ties (class 806) visas.  The matter was remitted to this Court by order of Hayne J of the High Court on 7 February 2003.

2. On 4 April 2003 Mansfield J of this Court made orders permitting the applicant by a specified date to file and serve a notice of motion seeking an extension of time in which to file proceedings and also to file and serve supporting affidavit material.  His Honour’s orders on that date indicated that in the event of the orders I have mentioned not being complied with, the applicant would be called upon at an adjourned directions hearing to show cause why the matter should not stand dismissed.

3. On 6 June 2003 his Honour varied the dates by which the notice of motion and supporting material were to be filed.  The final order made by his Honour on that date adjourned the directions hearing to today’s date, with the intent that if no notice of motion was issued in accordance with the directions given on 6 June, the application would be dismissed.

4. No such notice of motion has been filed;  no other material has been filed in the matter.  No reasonable explanation has been provided to the Court for why that has not occurred.

5. In the circumstances, the order of the Court will be that the application be dismissed.  The Court orders the applicants to pay the first respondent’s costs in this matter in the sum of $2,500.  There will be no order as to costs in relation to the second and third respondents.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Finn.

Associate:

Dated:            11 July 2003

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M Clisby
Solicitor for the Applicant:	M W Clisby
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr L Leerdam
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	8 July 2003
Date of Judgment:	8 July 2003