S292 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1609

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA S292 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1609 APPLICANT S292 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS NSD 2445 OF 2003 EMMETT J SYDNEY 9 NOVEMBER 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2445 OF 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S292 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

THIRD 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 NSD2445 OF 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S292 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 9 NOVEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. On 9 October 1996, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). On 29 May 1997, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused the application. On 1 July 1997, the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') for review of the delegate's decision. On 11 November 1998, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant sought review of the Tribunal's decision by the Federal Court. The Federal Court (Hely J) set aside the decision and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to be determined according to law. On 13 April 2000, the Tribunal (constituted differently to the first) confirmed the original decision ('the Tribunal decision'). 2 The applicant commenced a proceeding in the High Court of Australia by filing a draft order nisi on 13 June 2003, together with an affidavit sworn the day before. 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 claimed that he was one of the persons named in the Schedule of the Statement of Claim in the Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30 ('Muin and Lie') class action. 4 The grounds upon which relief was claimed in the draft order nisi were as follows: '(a) Error of jurisdiction in making the decision dated 11 November 1998 and 13 April 2000.