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. Associate: Dated: 12 September 2001 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr B Zipser Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 12 September 2001 Date of Judgment: 12 September 2001