FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1952 OLGA DRANICHNIKOV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND MS RYNEETE GAULT in her capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs AND MR KEVIN DUFFY in his capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Q 89 of 2000 DOWSETT J 8 DECEMBER 2000 BRISBANE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 89 OF 2000 BETWEEN: OLGA DRANICHNIKOV APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT MS RYNEETE GAULT in her capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs SECOND RESPONDENT MR KEVIN DUFFY in his capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE OF ORDER: 8 DECEMBER 2000 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Leave to appeal is 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 89 OF 2000 BETWEEN: OLGA DRANICHNIKOV APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT MS RYNEETE GAULT in her capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs SECOND RESPONDENT MR KEVIN DUFFY in his capacity as an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE: 8 DECEMBER 2000 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 When this matter was called on this morning, the applicant moved for judgment or alternatively for an adjournment upon the basis of alleged non-compliance by the respondent with directions in this matter. I have previously given my reasons for dismissing that motion. I am now asked pursuant to O 52 r 10 for leave to appeal against that decision. The proposed grounds of appeal as outlined by the applicant are by no means clear, but appear to relate to little more than a revisiting of the issues which I have considered, although there is also an assertion that I am biased and that I did not deal with some unspecified matters allegedly raised in an affidavit filed by the applicant in support of the motion. 2 The subject matter of the motion was very much a matter of practice. I cannot see that the applicant could have any prospects of success on an appeal, and in those circumstances I refuse leave to appeal. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate: Dated: 2 February 2001 The Applicant appeared in person. Interpreter for the Applicant: Ms T Downs Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr M Belcher, Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 8 December 2000 Date of Judgment: 8 December 2000