Gogoladze v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1226

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gogoladze v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1226

KHVICHA GOGOLADZE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 254 of 2001 WHITLAM, MADGWICK & DOWSETT JJ 28 AUGUST 2001 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 254 of 2001

BETWEEN: KHVICHA GOGOLADZE

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: WHITLAM, MADGWICK & DOWSETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 28 AUGUST 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 254 of 2001

BETWEEN: KHVICHA GOGOLADZE

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: WHITLAM, MADGWICK & DOWSETT JJ

DATE: 28 AUGUST 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WHITLAM J

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Moore J dismissing with costs an application for an order of review in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 10 August 2000. The applicant is a citizen of Georgia and acts for himself in this appeal as he did in the proceeding at first instance. He has argued his appeal with the assistance of an interpreter. 2 When the appeal was called on for hearing, the appellant sought an adjournment. He referred to the fact that he did not have a lawyer. He also said that he had expected Mr Volonski, the migration agent who had assisted him with his protection visa application, to have prepared written submissions in support of his appeal. The adjournment was refused. 3 In his address the appellant reminded the Court that he did not have a lawyer and that he did not speak English. He said that he had no opportunity to speak before the primary judge, but I think that he really meant that he considered he may have had some difficulty in communicating what it is he wanted to say. In any event, this morning he has stated what he takes issue with in the Tribunal decision and has, to the best of his ability, as a non-English speaking layman, pressed those submissions within the framework of s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Having listened carefully to the appellant's submissions, it is apparent that he merely makes the same points in support of his appeal that he made in his submissions to the primary judge. The effect of those submissions is carefully recorded in his Honour's reasons for judgment. 4 In hearing an appeal where an appellant is unrepresented, a burden is also cast on counsel for the respondent ("the Minister") to take a special care in preparing submissions. Counsel appearing for the Minister is well known to the Court for his competence in cases of the present type and has prepared a careful outline of submissions. His submissions show that the primary judge made no error and, importantly too, that it does not appear that any other ground of review was available to the appellant to challenge the Tribunal's decision. 5 For the reasons given by the primary judge, no ground of review was made out. The appeal should be dismissed with costs.