Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NBGY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 901 NBGY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 894 of 2004 LINDGREN J 8 JULY 2004 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 894 OF 2004
BETWEEN: NBGY
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER: 8 JULY 2004
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be 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 894 OF 2004
BETWEEN: NBGY
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: LINDGREN J
DATE: 8 JULY 2004
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant filed on 2 June 2004 what purports to be an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for relief in respect of a decision dated 28 May 2004 of the Refugee Review Tribunal. 2 The grounds of review set out in the application are as follows: '(1) The decision made by the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship [sic] and also the decision of RRT was an improper exercise of the powers conferred by the Migration Act 1958 and Migration regulations 1994 as amended. (2) The applicant is aggrieved by the decision. (3) The RRT and Immigration and Citizenship Minister failed to take into consideration the merits of the case. (4) The RRT and the Minister failed to act in good faith to make this decision.' 3 The original directions hearing was to take place at 2.15 pm on Monday 21 June 2004 but the applicant did not appear. The solicitor for the respondent Minister wrote to the applicant on the same day noting the non-appearance and advising, as was the fact, that the proceeding had been stood over for a further directions hearing to today, 8 July 2004, at 9.30 am. The letter stated that it was essential that the applicant, or a solicitor for the applicant, attend the directions hearing, otherwise the Minister would seek to have the application dismissed with costs. 4 On the matter being called this morning the applicant has again not appeared. An interpreter attended Court to assist him. 5 Ms Warner, the solicitor for the Minister, asks that I dismiss the application under O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules with costs and I will do so. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.
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