FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Vat v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1762
MIGRATION – application for order of review of a decision of Refugee Review Tribunal not to grant protection visa – non-appearance by applicant at directions hearing – whether application should be dismissed for non-appearance
VU THY VAT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N1163 OF 1999
EMMETT J
10 DECEMBER 1999
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N1163 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
VU THY VAT
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 DECEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
3.The respondent inform the applicant of the provisions of O 35, r 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.
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
N1163 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
VU THY VAT
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
10 DECEMBER 1999
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter was first listed before me on 26 November 1999 for directions. Shortly prior to that time, a communication had been received from the applicant indicating that an application for assistance had been lodged with the Legal Aid Commission. The applicant sought an adjournment of 90 days on the ground of awaiting the outcome of the decision of the Legal Aid Commission. My associate wrote to the applicant indicating that I was not prepared to grant an adjournment of 90 days and that the applicant should appear on the date fixed for the purposes of directions being given.
There was, in fact, no appearance on 26 November 1999 by the applicant. I therefore stood the matter over to today for directions. I directed the respondent to notify the applicant of the further date for directions and to indicate to the applicant any steps which the respondent proposes to ask the Court to take in the light of non-appearance by the applicant. On 29 November 1999, the Minister's solicitor wrote to the applicant, indicating that the matter would be listed for further directions today and that, if the applicant failed to appear, the Minister would seek an order that the application be dismissed with costs.
There has been no appearance by the applicant today and an application has been made on behalf of the Minister that the matter be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, I order that the application be dismissed. I order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. I also direct the respondent to inform the applicant of the provisions of Order 35 rule 7(2)(a)..
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate:
Dated: 15 December 1999
There was no appearance by the applicant Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 10 December 1999 Date of Judgment: 10 December 1999
- AGLC
- Vat v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1762
- Case
- [1999] FCA 1762
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse Vat's application for a protection visa was lawful and whether there were any jurisdictional errors. This involved an analysis of the decision-making process, the application of relevant legislative provisions, and the sufficiency of the reasons provided by the Minister. The court also needed to determine whether the decision was based on an error of law or if there was an improper or irrelevant consideration that affected the outcome.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Minister's decision was not flawed and was correctly made in accordance with the applicable law. The court confirmed that all relevant matters had been considered and that there was no error in the application of the law or in the decision-making process. As such, the court dismissed the application for judicial review. The court further ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs and directed the respondent to inform the applicant of the provisions of O 35, r 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules, which relates to the payment of costs in such proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
3. The respondent inform the applicant of the provisions of O 35, r 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.
Note:
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
Established by: EMMETT J
Full text does not contain this section.