Uddin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 886

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Uddin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 886

TAHER UDDIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFFAIRS

N 337 OF 2000

SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
20 JUNE 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N337 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	TAHER UDDIN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 JUNE 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed;

2.   The applicant pay the respondent’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	N337 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	TAHER UDDIN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	20 JUNE 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 11 April 2000, the applicant commenced proceedings in this Court seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 15 March 2000. In that decision, the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.

2. At a directions hearing held on 26 May 2000, the matter was listed for hearing today. The report of listing for 26 May 2000 indicates that the applicant was present on that day. When the matter was called today, there was no appearance for the applicant.

3. Mr Lloyd, who appears on behalf of the respondent, has tendered correspondence, including a letter from the applicant to the Registrar of the Court. In that letter, the applicant states that he wishes to discontinue proceedings.  In reply, a registrar wrote to the applicant at his address for service indicating that if the applicant wished to withdraw the application, he should discuss the question with the Australian Government Solicitor. The letter went on to say that unless the respondent agreed not to seek costs, it would be necessary for the applicant to appear in court today in order to raise the costs issue.

4. Mr Lloyd also tendered a letter dated 14 June 2000 sent to the applicant by the Australian Government Solicitor. In that letter, it is made clear that the Minister had no objection to the case being discontinued, but intended to seek costs. The letter enclosed short minutes of order that would have resulted in the application being dismissed and the applicant being ordered to pay the respondent’s costs (assessed at $1000). No response has been received to that letter.

5. In these circumstances, it is clear that the applicant does not intend to press his application. In view of his non-appearance today, the appropriate course is to accede to Mr Lloyd’s application that the proceedings be dismissed.

6. Mr Lloyd has sought costs on behalf of the respondent.  It is appropriate that I order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville.

Associate:

Dated:             20 June 2000

There was no appearance for the applicant.

Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	20 June 2000
Date of Judgment:	20 June 2000