Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Lewai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2001] FCA 1314
TIMOCI LEWAI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1214 OF 2001 TIMOCI LEWAI v GRANT DAVIDSON AND WENDY GREEN N 1301 OF 2001 HELY J 12 SEPTEMBER 2001 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1214 OF 2001
BETWEEN: TIMOCI LEWAI
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
BETWEEN: RESPONDENT
AND: N 1301 OF 2001
TIMOCI LEWAI
APPLICANT
GRANT DAVIDSON
FIRST RESPONDENT
WENDY GREEN
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HELY J
DATE OF ORDER: 12 SEPTEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. In each matter, 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 1214 OF 2001
BETWEEN: TIMOCI LEWAI
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
BETWEEN: RESPONDENT
AND N 1301 OF 2001
TIMOCI LEWAI
APPLICANT
GRANT DAVIDSON
FIRST RESPONDENT
WENDY GREEN
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HELY J
DATE: 12 SEPTEMBER 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This matter was heard by me on Friday 7 September 2001 and adjourned until today. I adjourned the matter for two reasons: the first was so that I could give consideration to the detailed submissions which had been put on both sides as to whether this was an appropriate case in which to grant interlocutory relief; the second was to give Mr Zipser the opportunity of instituting proceedings which he had foreshadowed challenging the propriety of the applicant's removal. 2 I have come to the conclusion that the application for interlocutory relief should be refused and I publish my reasons for coming to that decision. Those reasons were prepared before I received some further submissions during the course of this morning from Mr Zipser and some submissions from Mr Roberts at lunch time. I was not expecting to receive the submissions from counsel as I thought that the argument on the issue had concluded last Friday. 3 For that reason the reasons which I had prepared do not advert specifically to the documents that were received during the course of the morning. I have had the opportunity of reading those documents and nothing which is in them causes me to change either the conclusions which I had reached or the reasons which I have given for coming to those conclusions. 4 Accordingly, the application for interlocutory relief is refused and, as I said, I publish my reasons for coming to that decision. 5 Mr Zipser, in the light of the reasons which I have given, seeks that I should finally determine the application for an order of review in proceedings N1214 of 2001 which has been fixed for hearing in November. He has also requested that I determine the application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act which was returnable this afternoon. If I may say so, that is a sensible attitude for him to adopt. 6 It follows from the reasons that I have given that it is my opinion that the Application for an Order of Review fails and should be dismissed. It is also my opinion that the application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act fails and should be dismissed 7 In each case the application is dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.
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