S1075 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 676

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1075 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 676 S1075 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR N 1050 OF 2003 EMMETT J 3 FEBRUARY 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1050 OF 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: S1075 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

BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. AND THE COURT NOTES: 2. The agreement of the parties that there be no order as to 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 1050 OF 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: S1075 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 The applicant is a citizen of Indonesia, who arrived in Australia on 31 March 1996. On 21 June 1996 he lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On 7 March 1997, a delegate of the second respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Minister'), refused to grant a visa. On 3 April 1997, the applicant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). On 23 March 1998, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant subsequently became a party to proceeding S 36 of 1999 in the High Court. 2 On 29 May 2003, a draft order nisi was filed in the High Court on his behalf seeking constitutional writ relief in respect of the Tribunal's decision, on the ground that the Tribunal failed to accord him procedural fairness. That proceeding was remitted to this Court. 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 the reasons why any extension of time should be granted, if needed. That order was not complied with. 3 In the meantime, on 17 December 2003, the solicitors previously acting for the applicant filed a notice of withdrawal of solicitor. There seems to have been some misunderstanding because it appears that, on 3 July 2003, the applicant wrote to the High Court indicating that he wished to withdraw from the High Court proceeding. He said that he had not responded to requests from his former solicitor because of lack of funds. 4 When the matter was called on today, the applicant indicated that he had previously sought to withdraw. The solicitor for the Minister indicated that, if the applicant would be prepared to consent to dismissal, the Minister would not seek costs. The solicitor for the Minister indicated, however, that he would seek dismissal in any event for want of compliance with the direction. The applicant has consented to dismissal. Accordingly, I propose to order that the application be dismissed by consent. I note that the Minister does not seek any order as to the costs of the proceeding. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.