SZBWJ & Ors v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 2

[2007] HCATrans 002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S78 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZBWJ

First Applicant

SZBWK

Second Applicant

SZBWL

Third Applicant

SZBWM

Fourth Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Directions

GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON THURSDAY, 25 JANUARY 2007, AT 10.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

MR A.B. SLATTERY:   If it please the Court, I appear for the applicants.  (instructed by the applicants)

MR T. REILLY:   If it please the Court, I appear for the first respondent.  (instructed by Blake Dawson Waldron)

HIS HONOUR:   There is a submitting appearance for the second respondent, being the Tribunal.  Yes, you have put on written submissions, Mr Reilly.  The question is what is to happen next?  Is there going to be a written reply?

MR REILLY:   I am sorry, your Honour.  We have put on our summary in response to the applicants’ summary and I do not ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   That is right.  So I am really asking Mr Slattery.

MR REILLY:   I am so sorry, your Honour.

MR SLATTERY:   I would like that opportunity, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, all right.  The question is then what is next to be done with the matter.  Your problem, Mr Slattery, I think, at first blush anyway, is that what happened was that this point about section 424A was raised in the Full Court and they, in effect, refused you leave to raise it, I guess.

MR SLATTERY:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Though they went on to say some things about it at a substantive level.  But to get into this Court you would really have to show at the first hurdle, I suppose, that the Full Court miscarried in the exercise of what they did by shutting you out.  That would be right, would it not?

MR SLATTERY:   Yes, your Honour.  I understand that.  There is a case of NAJT which covers this question which I have not referred to in my submissions.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, I understand the problem.  That circumstance, I think, makes it inconvenient to connect it to SZBYR which is being heard on 28 February which does involve 424A.  Two things can happen, and I would like to hear what you both say about it.  I can either list the special leave application for hearing orally in Sydney on Friday, 2 March or it can proceed to be disposed of on the papers without an oral hearing.  Now, which would you prefer?

MR SLATTERY:   I would prefer an oral hearing.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  What about you, Mr Reilly?

MR REILLY:   Well, your Honour, not only because of problems of my availability, I think we would prefer the latter course, that it go on the papers, but I suppose if my friend wants an oral hearing, he is entitled to one.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  What is your problem with 2 March?

MR REILLY:   I just have a matter on on that day already, your Honour, but I am sure I can get out of it if need be, if that is the date that the Court prefers.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, all right.  Well, the books can be got ready and I will just direct that the application be added to the list for hearing in Sydney on Friday, 2 March 2007.  Costs of today will be costs of the special leave application.  I do not need to give any special direction about preparing the books.  I think they can just go on the ordinary course.

MR REILLY:   That is so, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Is there anything else?

MR SLATTERY:   No, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   I will now adjourn.

AT 10.38 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED