JUDGMENT No, TBO, 6? CATCHWORDS Immigration - Special Case for consideration of Full Court stated by single Judge of the Court - Grant of temporary entry permits rendering stated case and application for review academic. AYOUB MALEKI-ALUCHE and AKRAM MALEKI-ALUCHE Vv. THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS G. 357 of 1987 * ay fap,tq) , " an ay a - \ LOCKHART, BEAUMONT AND EINFELD JJ. 30 NOVEMBER 1987 oy SYDNEY <3 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G 357 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION SPECIAL CASE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FULL COURT OF THE FEDERAL COURT by His Honour Mr. Justice Einfeld BETWEEN AYOUB MALEKI-ALUCHE oo First Applicant AKRAM MALEK TI-ALUCHE Second Applicant AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGES MAKING ORDER: LOCKHART, BEAUMONT and EINFELD JJ. DATE OF ORDER: 30 NOVEMBER 1987 WHERE ORDER MADE: SYDNEY MINUTE OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: - i. The application be dismissed; and 2. There be no order as to costs. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G 357 of 1987 wwe ww GENERAL DIVISION SPECIAL CASE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FULL COURT OF THE FEDERAL COURT by His Honour Mr. Justice Einfeld BETWEEN: AYOUB MALEKI-ALUCHE First Applicant AKRAM MALEKI-ALUCHE Second Applicant AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent COURT: LOCKHART, BEAUMONT and EINFELD JJ. DATE: 30 November 1987 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: Events have overtaken the questions raised before us in this case. We are informed by counsel that on the evening of the day on which we finally reserved our decision on the questions raised in the special case, temporary entry permits were granted to the applicants and to their children. We are also informed that those permits will subsist until May 1988 and that in the meantime the applicants and their children are no longer being held in custody. It is common ground that in these circumstances the questions 2. raised in the stated case and the substantive application for review itself have become academic and that the application should be dismissed. The only issue is one of costs. In the opinion of the Court there should be no order as to the costs of the special case or of the application. The order of the Court is that the application be dismissed and that there be no order as to the costs of any party. I certify this and the preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Court. Associate Z, WV bg Date: 30 November 1987