Baroi, Manik & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 989

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1099 of 1997

BETWEEN: MANIK BAROI

FIRST Applicant

PAMELA BAROI

SECOND APPLICANT

NANCY BAROI

THIRD APPLICANT

LIZA BAROI

FOURTH APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 22 JULY 1998

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Mr Goldsmith, who appears for the applicants, has filed a motion in which the applicants seek the following orders:

"3. The hearing of the notice of motion filed on 16 July 1998 by the Refugee Review Tribunal be adjourned to a date convenient to this Honourable Court. 4. The hearing of these proceedings currently fixed for 31 July 1998 be vacated and the proceedings stood over for hearing to a date convenient to this Honourable Court." In the principal proceedings, which were commenced on 1 December 1997, the applicants challenge the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") made on 24 November 1997, to affirm a decision by the Minister's delegate not to grant the applicants protection visas. The reference in par 3 of the applicants' motion, to a notice of motion filed on 16 July 1998 by the RRT, is to a notice of motion seeking to set aside a subpoena issued to the RRT on 1 July 1998 requiring it to produce certain documents. The applicants, in effect, seek an adjournment of the hearing of the RRT's motion and of the hearing in the principal proceedings. In support of the applicants' motion, Mr Goldsmith has read an affidavit from Mr Baroi, the first applicant. In that affidavit, Mr Baroi recounts some of the history of the proceedings. He instructed Mr Goldsmith to act on behalf of himself and the other applicants in April 1998. The amended application for an order of review was filed on 5 June 1998, and on 18 June 1998, the matter was listed for hearing on 31 July 1998. Mr Baroi's affidavit goes on to say that he and the other applicants are anxious to be represented by their present solicitor and by counsel who has provided advice in relation to the case. They wish to be legally represented on both the hearing of the motion to set aside the subpoena and the hearing of the application for review of the RRT's decision. Mr Baroi says that he and the other applicants are not in a financial position to pay for legal representation. They have virtually no savings and Mrs Baroi, who is currently pregnant, is not employed. Mr Baroi is employed, but earns only a modest wage. Mr Baroi says that he has previously applied for legal aid but has been rejected and that his current solicitor has advised him that any further application for legal aid would also be refused. Mr Baroi says, as one would expect, that he and the other applicants will be disadvantaged in the conduct of the proceedings if they are not legal represented That proposition I readily accept. In his affidavit, Mr Baroi requests that the motion and the hearing both be adjourned for a period of between four to six months. Mr Baroi says this: