Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Azarcon v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] FCA 635
HERMENIA AZARCON v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL N 237 of 2002 WHITLAM J 10 MAY 2002 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 237 of 2002
BETWEEN: HERMENIA AZARCON
APPLICANT
AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER: 10 MAY 2002
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The proceeding is dismissed. 2. The applicant 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 237 of 2002
BETWEEN: HERMENIA AZARCON
APPLICANT
AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: WHITLAM J
DATE: 10 MAY 2002
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application by the respondent for an order for dismissal pursuant to O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules. The proceeding purports to be an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). 2 The subject decision was given on 27 February 2002. The Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision refusing to grant access to documents requested by the applicant under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The Tribunal was satisfied that the documents did not exist. That is, of course, a finding of fact. 3 The notice filed by the applicant to institute this proceeding states no question of law to be raised on the appeal and no such question has been suggested by the evidence admitted or arguments made on the hearing of the present motion. It is an alleged error of law which founds an appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. That is the basis upon which jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court: Allan v Transurban City Link Ltd (2001) 75 ALJR 1551 at 1554. 4 In relation to this proceeding, therefore, no reasonable basis for the appeal is disclosed. I am conscious of the exceptional caution with which the power to order summary dismissal must be exercised: see General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129. Nonetheless the applicant's purported appeal is utterly hopeless and foredoomed to failure. 5 The proceeding is dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.
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