Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kodagodage v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 502
Yilmaz v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 906, (2000) 100 FCR 495 applied
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Li [2000] FCA 1456 applied
WIMALASIRI RANAWEERA KODAGODAGE V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V 124 OF 2001 MARSHALL J MELBOURNE 2 APRIL 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V124 OF 2001
BETWEEN: WIMALASIRI RANAWEERA KODAGODAGE
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER: 2 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an order of review dated 14 February 2001 be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the respondent's motion and the proceeding generally. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V124 OF 2001
BETWEEN: WIMALASIRI RANAWEERA KODAGODAGE
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE: 2 APRIL 2001
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 14 February 2001, the applicant filed an application seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") made on 21 December 2000. The RRT's decision affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the respondent refusing the applicant a protection visa. 2 It appears to me that the applicant's initial application for a protection visa was not valid because certain critical questions on the application were left unanswered. Before the matter went to the RRT, a statement answering those critical questions was delivered to the respondent's department. 3 On 2 April 2001, the Court heard a notice of motion issued by the respondent inviting the Court to dismiss the application for judicial review. The solicitor for the respondent argued that the application should be dismissed on the basis that allowing the application was inconsistent with Full Court authority. The authorities referred to were Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Li [2000] FCA 1456 ("Li") and Yilmaz v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 906, (2000) 100 FCR 495 ("Yilmaz"). The solicitor for the applicant acknowledged the weight of these authorities. At page 2 of the transcript the solicitor for the applicant said: "Your Honour, the applicant obviously can't take any issue with the law as it currently stands…And naturally a single judge of this court is bound by Li Wen Han and also of course the majority judgment in the matter of Yulmaz (sic)." 4 Ultimately, the solicitor for the applicant conceded that in light of Li and Yilmaz the application could not succeed. 5 Consequently, I considered in the circumstances that I should order upon the motion of the respondent to dismiss the proceedings as follows:
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