Applicant M1009/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous affairs [2003] FCA 1511

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant M115/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1448, followed.

APPLICANT M1009/2003 v THE HONOURABLE PHILIP RUDDOCK, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND J VRACHNAS SITTING AS THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND MR ADOLFO GENTILE IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

V778 OF 2003

MARSHALL J

8 DECEMBER 2003

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V778 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT M1009/2003 APPLICANT
AND:	THE HONOURABLE PHILIP RUDDOCK, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA FIRST RESPONDENT J VRACHNAS SITTING AS THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND MR ADOLFO GENTILE IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENTS
JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 DECEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

2. The respondents’ motion otherwise be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application, including the 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
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V778 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT M1009/2003

APPLICANT

AND:

THE HONOURABLE PHILIP RUDDOCK, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

RESPONDENT

J VRACHNAS SITTING AS THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND MR ADOLFO GENTILE IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	8 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 In Applicant M115/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1448 the Court made the following orders:

1. The application be dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

2. The respondents’ motion otherwise be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application, including the costs of the motion.

These reasons for judgment should be read together with those in Applicant M115/2003.

2 As in Applicant M115/2003 the respondent filed a notice of motion to dismiss the proceeding. The facts and circumstances of this matter are materially indistinguishable from those in Applicant M115/2003. The applicant did not contend otherwise.

3 The draft order nisi is in the same form as in Applicant M115/2003. Consent orders of the type made in Applicant M115/2003 were also made in this matter. The applicant filed “contentions of law” but did not file any affidavit material illustrating how it would have made a difference to his case before the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) if he had been appraised of adverse country information before it decided his application for a protection visa; assuming that he was not, in fact, so informed by the Tribunal.

4 Accordingly it is appropriate to make the same orders in the motion in this matter as in Applicant M115/2003.

Orders

1. The application be dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

2. The respondents’ motion otherwise be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application, including the costs of the motion.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated: 17 December 2003

The applicant represented himself.

Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Chris Horan

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz

Date of Hearing:	8 December 2003

Date of Judgment:	8 December 2003

Top