FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Haddid v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1292 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Federal Court Rules (Cth) O 20 r 2(1)(a), O 54B r 5, O 30 r 5(1)(a) Wong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 371 referred to Barman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1944 referred to Buksh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 762 referred to OMAR HADDID v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1084 OF 2001 HELY J 4 SEPTEMBER 2001 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1084 OF 2001 BETWEEN: OMAR HADDID APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: HELY J DATE OF ORDER: 4 SEPTEMBER 2001 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. 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 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1084 OF 2001 BETWEEN: OMAR HADDID APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: HELY J DATE: 4 SEPTEMBER 2001 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 17 July 2001 the applicant lodged an Application for an Order of Review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") made on 27 June 2001, by which RRT affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The applicant was then in immigration detention. The applicant escaped from detention on 19 July 2001. He did not appear when the application was listed for directions on 2 August 2001, but I am not satisfied that he was notified of the date fixed for the directions hearing prior to his escape. 2 The matter was listed again on 16 August 2001 and again this morning. On neither occasion did the applicant appear. 3 The form of application states that the applicant is aggrieved by the decision because "the applicant will face serious consequences in case he removed back home secondary to the protection visa application refusal". The grounds of the application are said "to be detailed later in the submission". No further particulars of the grounds on which the Application for an Order of Review is made is to be found within the terms of the document. 4 The application as filed does not specify any ground of review within the meaning of s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), and on that basis should be summarily dismissed. See Wong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 371, Barman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1944, and Buksh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 762. The applicant has taken no steps to progress the application since it was first filed in this Court, and by escaping from detention, he has effectively precluded himself from further prosecuting these proceedings. 5 In those circumstances I conclude that the application is not being prosecuted with due diligence and for that further reason the application should be dismissed. Accordingly, pursuant to the Federal Court Rules (Cth) Order 20, rule 2(1)(a) when read in conjunction with Order 54B, rule 5 I would order that the application be dismissed. I would make a similar order pursuant to Order 30, rule 5(1)(a) because the application is not being prosecuted with due diligence. 6 The application is therefore dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely. Associate: Dated: 11 September 2001 No appearance by the applicant Counsel for the Respondent: R Francois Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 4 September 2001 Date of Judgment: 4 September 2001