FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lewai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2001]
FCA 1314
TIMOCI LEWAI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1214 OF 2001
TIMOCI LEWAI v GRANT DAVIDSON AND WENDY GREEN
N 1301 OF 2001
HELY J
12 SEPTEMBER 2001
SYDNEY
|
|
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
N 1214 OF 2001 |
|
BETWEEN: |
TIMOCI LEWAI APPLICANT
|
|
AND:
BETWEEN:
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
N 1301 OF 2001
TIMOCI LEWAI APPLICANT
GRANT DAVIDSON FIRST RESPONDENT
WENDY GREEN SECOND RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
HELY J |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
12 SEPTEMBER 2001 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. In each matter, the application be dismissed with 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 1214 OF 2001 |
|
BETWEEN: |
TIMOCI LEWAI APPLICANT
|
|
AND:
BETWEEN:
AND |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
N 1301 OF 2001 TIMOCI LEWAI APPLICANT
GRANT DAVIDSON FIRST RESPONDENT
WENDY GREEN SECOND RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
HELY J |
|
DATE: |
12 SEPTEMBER 2001 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This matter was heard by me on Friday 7 September 2001 and adjourned until today. I adjourned the matter for two reasons: the first was so that I could give consideration to the detailed submissions which had been put on both sides as to whether this was an appropriate case in which to grant interlocutory relief; the second was to give Mr Zipser the opportunity of instituting proceedings which he had foreshadowed challenging the propriety of the applicant’s removal.
2 I have come to the conclusion that the application for interlocutory relief should be refused and I publish my reasons for coming to that decision. Those reasons were prepared before I received some further submissions during the course of this morning from Mr Zipser and some submissions from Mr Roberts at lunch time. I was not expecting to receive the submissions from counsel as I thought that the argument on the issue had concluded last Friday.
3 For that reason the reasons which I had prepared do not advert specifically to the documents that were received during the course of the morning. I have had the opportunity of reading those documents and nothing which is in them causes me to change either the conclusions which I had reached or the reasons which I have given for coming to those conclusions.
4 Accordingly, the application for interlocutory relief is refused and, as I said, I publish my reasons for coming to that decision.
5 Mr Zipser, in the light of the reasons which I have given, seeks that I should finally determine the application for an order of review in proceedings N1214 of 2001 which has been fixed for hearing in November. He has also requested that I determine the application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act which was returnable this afternoon. If I may say so, that is a sensible attitude for him to adopt.
6 It follows from the reasons that I have given that it is my opinion that the Application for an Order of Review fails and should be dismissed. It is also my opinion that the application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act fails and should be dismissed
7 In each case the application is dismissed with costs.
|
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely. |
Associate:
Dated: 12 September 2001
|
Counsel for the Applicant: |
Mr B Zipser |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Blake Dawson Waldron |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
12 September 2001 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
12 September 2001 |
