Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
De Zoysa v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 428
RANIL MUNASINGHE DE ZOYSA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
V534 OF 2000
WEINBERG J
22 MARCH 2001
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY V534 of 2000
BETWEEN: RANIL MUNASINGHE DE ZOYSA
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: WEINBERG J
DATE OF ORDER: 22 MARCH 2001
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application be dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY V534 of 2000
BETWEEN: RANIL MUNASINGHE DE ZOYSA
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: WEINBERG J
DATE: 22 MARCH 2001
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") which was given on 7 July 2000. The Tribunal decided that the applicant was not entitled to a protection visa. By his application for an order to review filed on 25 July 2000, the applicant set out the following ground in support of the application: "Review of a Tribunal Decision on grounds under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958. (Further details to be forwarded.)" 2 As far as I can tell, no further details of the grounds in support of this application have ever been provided. That is so, notwithstanding orders which were made by the Court that the applicant file and serve contentions of fact and law no later than 21 days prior to the hearing. No such contentions of fact and law have been provided. 3 When the matter was called on for hearing this morning there was no appearance by the applicant. Efforts were made to contact him by telephone. However, these proved to be unsuccessful. I considered it appropriate, in all the circumstances, to proceed to determine the application. 4 After I delivered my reasons for judgment ex tempore, it emerged that the applicant had sought, this morning, immediately prior to the hearing, to discontinue his application. Notice of his intention to seek leave to discontinue had not been given in accordance with the Federal Court Rules. Nonetheless, I was prepared to vacate this judgment (which had not yet been formally entered) if the applicant indicated that he was prepared to discontinue the proceeding rather than have judgment entered against him. However, the applicant did not respond to a letter from the representatives of the respondent offering him this option, on condition that he pay the respondent's costs. Accordingly, I have proceeded to formalise the order dismissing this application with costs, and to publish my reasons for judgment.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate