S295 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1602

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA S295 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1602 APPLICANT S295 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ANOR NSD 2449 OF 2003 EMMETT J SYDNEY 9 NOVEMBER 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2449 OF 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S295 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 9 NOVEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Order 51A rule 5(1) not apply to the proceeding. 2. The application for orders nisi be refused.

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 NSD 2449 OF 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S295 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 9 NOVEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. On 26 June 1997, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). On 24 July 1997, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Minister') refused the application. On 8 August 1997, the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') for review of the delegate's decision. On 28 March 2000, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. 2 On 13 June 2003, the applicant commenced a proceeding in the High Court of Australia by filing a draft order nisi and affidavit sworn the day before. Accordingly, the application seeks an order by the High Court that would require the respondents to show cause why writs of prohibition, certiorari, mandamus or an injunction should not issue to them in respect of the Tribunal's decision. 3 In his affidavit, the applicant asserted: 'I was in the class action and seeking waiver for time limit for filing this writ as time limit period has already been expired.' No particulars of 'the class action' are furnished although it is likely that it was intended to be a reference to the proceeding in the High Court that was the subject of judgment in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30. 4 The grounds upon which relief was claimed in the draft order nisi are as follows: '(a) a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the Decision;