S244 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1462

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S244 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1462 S244 of 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 1616 of 2005 BRANSON J 6 OCTOBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1616 of 2005

BETWEEN: S244 of 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 OCTOBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs fixed in the sum of $500.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1616 of 2005

BETWEEN: S244 of 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 6 OCTOBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 By an order dated 1 September 2005 Sackville J ordered that the applicant's application for orders nisi for constitutional writs in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') be dismissed with costs. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal from that interlocutory judgment. 2 The decision of the Tribunal was handed down on 9 January 2001. The judgment of Sackville J is dated 1 September 2005. The applicant has this morning sought an adjournment of this hearing. She has told the Court that she has an appointment to see a barrister concerning this matter on 19 October 2005. I have not considered it appropriate to grant the adjournment sought. 3 The application is extraordinary in nature in that it seeks leave to appeal from a judgment refusing an application for the issue of orders nisi. A long period of time has passed since the decision of the Tribunal. Approximately five weeks have passed since the publication of the judgment of Sackville J. The applicant has in my view had more than adequate opportunity to seek legal advice. 4 It is unnecessary for me on this application to give consideration to whether, were it shown that the judgment of Sackville J is, or might be, affected by error, it would be appropriate to grant leave to appeal from the judgment. It cannot reasonably be suggested that any error affects the interlocutory judgment of his Honour.