S1112 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 492

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1112 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 492 S1112 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR N1109 OF 2003 EMMETT J 3 FEBRUARY 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1109 OF 2003

BETWEEN: S1112 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 3 FEBRUARY 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the application be dismissed; 2. the applicant pay the second 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 N1109 OF 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S1112 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 3 FEBRUARY 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 10 March 1997, the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs ('the Minister'), to refuse the applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). The applicant subsequently became a party to proceeding No S 89 of 1999 in the High Court of Australia seeking prerogative writ relief in respect of the Tribunal's decision on the ground that the Tribunal failed to accord the applicant procedural fairness. A draft order nisi seeking relief on that basis was filed on 29 May 2003. The matter was then remitted to this Court pursuant to orders made by Gaudron J. 2 On 27 October 2003, I ordered the applicant to file and serve, on or before 20 January 2004, a statement of contentions of relevant facts and law setting out particulars of the grounds relied upon and any affidavits which the applicant intends to rely on at the hearing. Up to that stage the applicant was represented by Adrian Joel and Co, solicitors. On 17 December 2003, Adrian Joel and Co filed notice of withdrawal of solicitor with an affidavit in support indicating that the applicant had been informed of the intention of the solicitors to withdraw. 3 The affidavit discloses that the applicant had been informed on 3 November that the solicitors would be withdrawing if he did not contact them within 14 days. On 18 December 2003, the Minister's solicitor wrote to the applicant at addresses known to the Minister, informing the applicant that, if he failed to comply with my orders, the Minister would be seeking to have the application dismissed with costs pursuant to Order 10 rule 7(1)(a). 4 The direction was not complied with and, when the matter was called on for hearing today, there was no appearance by the applicant. However, Mr Markus, the solicitor for the Minister, informed me from the bar table that, on 6 January 2004 and subsequently on 18 and 19 January 2004, telephone calls were received at the Minister's solicitor's office. In the course of those telephone calls the applicant was advised to get legal advice and the nature of my orders was explained to him. Notwithstanding that advice, as I have said, the orders were not complied with and there was no appearance by the applicant when the matter was called on for directions today. 5 In the circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to accede to the Minister's application that the proceeding be dismissed with costs pursuant to Order 10 rule 7. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.