FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA S1729 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1775 S1729 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR N2089 OF 2003 EMMETT J 23 APRIL 2004 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N2089 OF 2003 BETWEEN: S1729 OF 2003 APPLICANT AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: EMMETT J DATE OF ORDER: 23 APRIL 2004 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: (1) The motion be dismissed. (2) The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the motion. 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 N2089 OF 2003 BETWEEN: S1729 OF 2003 APPLICANT AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: EMMETT J DATE: 23 APRIL 2004 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this matter on 20 February 2004 I ordered that the application for orders nisi be refused for reasons that I delivered on that day. The applicant has now filed a motion seeking that the proceeding dismissed on 20 February 2004 be reinstated. I do not know what the applicant means by asking that the proceeding be 'reinstated'. No good reason has been advanced as to why I should reconsider the order that I made after full argument on 20 February 2004. 2 The affidavit filed in support of the motion is misleading in that it suggests that the matter was disposed of by consent. I consider that this motion is quite misconceived and should be dismissed. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate: Dated: 25 January 2005 Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr T Silva Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Markus Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 23 April 2004 Date of Judgment: 23 April 204