FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Applicant S1198 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 577 APPLICANT S1198 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N244 of 2004 JACOBSON J 4 MAY 2004 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N244 of 2004 BETWEEN: APPLICANT S1198 of 2003 APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: JACOBSON J DATE OF ORDER: 4 MAY 2004 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties. 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 N244 of 2004 BETWEEN: APPLICANT S1198 of 2003 APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: JACOBSON J DATE: 4 MAY 2004 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is one of six applications for leave to appeal against the judgment of Emmett J given on 20 February 2004 refusing to grant an order nisi. This matter and 707 others were remitted to the court by the High Court of Australia. They came before Emmett J on 20 February 2004. His Honour made orders, in each of the proceedings, refusing an order nisi. 2 The applicant in each of the proceedings was at one time named as a represented party in the proceedings in the High Court known as Muin v The Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors S36 of 1999 ("Muin") and Nancy Lie v The Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors S89 of 1999 ("Lie"). Emmett J traced the history of the proceedings in his judgment: see Applicant S1174 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 289. 3 The reasons why his Honour refused to make an order nisi in each of the proceedings are set out at [22] of his Honour's judgment. His Honour said that it was patent that the material filed in each of the proceedings did not demonstrate an arguable case for relief. His Honour also refused to direct the Minister to make available to the applicants documents to which the applicants were not entitled, but without which they were incapable of determining whether they had any grounds for relief: see Applicant S1174 at [24] – [25] and [35]. His Honour also found at [28] that the refusal of an order nisi was not a bar to the commencement of fresh proceedings. 4 The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of his application for leave. The affidavit states that his Honour's decision did not consider all the legal issues related to the application and it said that further details would be submitted in due course. 5 The applicant appeared before me in person this morning. He submitted that the RRT failed to examine all the evidence, that the RRT was supposed to examine the evidence, and that the RRT failed to check the country information. He also submitted that the RRT failed to examine and look at what was happening in his country. 6 Nothing which has been put to me satisfies me that there is any doubt about the correctness of his Honour's judgment. I am satisfied that no injustice would be caused by refusing leave to appeal. 7 Accordingly, the orders that I will make are that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties. I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson. Associate: Date: 4 May 2004 Applicant self represented Counsel for the Respondent: J D Harris SC Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 4 May 2004 Date of Judgment: 4 May 2004