Yen v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 701

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Yen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCA 701

JUEI CHING YEN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Q 187 OF 2002

DOWSETT J
3 JUNE 2003
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 187 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

JUEI CHING YEN
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 JUNE 2003

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for an adjournment be refused.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 187 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

JUEI CHING YEN
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	3 JUNE 2003
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 7 March, this matter was set down for hearing today.  At that time, as I understand it, the applicant had the benefit of legal advice.  I am told, however, that it was unclear until last Friday whether ongoing legal assistance would be available.  Mr Di Carlo, who appears for the applicant, says that although he has tried hard to be ready today, he would like an adjournment.  The only reason appears to be that his instructions to appear were confirmed only on Friday when funding became available.

2. The applicant was not entitled to proceed upon the basis that the matter would only be heard today in the event that she was able to make financial arrangements with her legal advisers.  I do not cast aspersions against them for their unwillingness to prepare until they were in funds, but the applicant must bear responsibility for her own conduct.  In those circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence which would explain in a sensible way why she was not able to put her solicitors in funds at an earlier stage, I would be very reluctant to grant an adjournment.  However the matter goes further than that.  As I have said, it seems that the solicitors were engaged in the matter from a relatively early stage and were retained when the matter was set down.

3. We have, in connection with the application for an adjournment, sought to canvass the issues to be raised in any appeal, in order to ascertain whether there might be any substantial injustice suffered by the applicant in the event that the matter went on today, which injustice might be sufficient to displace the reluctance which I would otherwise feel towards granting an adjournment in the circumstances of this case.  The issues are discrete and easily managed.  In those circumstances I cannot see that any significant disadvantage will be experienced by the applicant if we proceeded today.  I refuse the application for an adjournment.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            23 July 2003

Counsel for the Applicant:	S Di Carlo
Counsel for the First Respondent:	M Brady
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The Second Respondent did not appear.
Date of Hearing:	3 June 2003
Date of Judgment:	3 June 2003