FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1076 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1794

S1076 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1071 OF 2003

S1080 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1075 OF 2003

S1081 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1076 OF 2003

S1088 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1082 OF 2003

S1097 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1089 OF 2003

S1102 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1099 OF 2003

S1105 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1102 OF 2003

S1113 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1110 OF 2003

S1116 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1113 OF 2003

S1120 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1137 OF 2003

EMMETT J

3 FEBRUARY 2004

SYDNEY

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N1071 OF 2003

N1075 OF 2003

N1076 OF 2003

N1082 OF 2003

N1089 OF 2003

N1099 OF 2003

N1102 OF 2003

N1110 OF 2003

N1113 OF 2003

N1137 OF 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     In each of these ten matters, the applicant seeks Constitutional writ relief in respect of a decision of the first respondent in each proceeding, the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).  In each case, the applicant had applied for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Tribunal confirmed the decision made by a delegate of the second respondent in each proceeding, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’) to refuse a protection visa.  Each applicant subsequently became a party to proceeding S 89 of 1999 or S 36 of 1999 in the High Court of Australia, commenced by Adrian Joel & Co Solicitors (‘the Solicitors’) on behalf of Ms Lie and Mr Muin respectively.  Each of those proceedings purported to be a representative proceeding. 

2                     Pursuant to orders made by Gaudron J on 25 November 2002, a draft order nisi was subsequently filed on behalf of each applicant, seeking Constitutional writ relief on the ground that the Tribunal failed to accord that applicant procedural fairness.  Each of the proceedings was then remitted to this Court.  They were all listed for directions before me on 27 October 2003, when the applicants were represented by the Solicitors.  On 27 October 2003, I made orders that, on or before 20 January 2004, each applicant file and serve a statement of contentions of relevant facts and law setting out the particulars of the grounds relied upon by that applicant, together with any affidavits which that applicant intended to rely on at the hearing. 

3                     On 2 December 2003, the Solicitors filed a notice of withdrawal of solicitor in relation to each of the ten applications.  The affidavit filed in support of that notice indicated that each of the applicants had been informed on 3 November 2003 that, unless he or she contacted the Solicitors within 14 days, the Solicitors would withdraw from the proceeding.  The Minister was notified of the letters and, on 9 December 2003, the Minister’s solicitor wrote to each applicant at the addresses known to the Minister, indicating that, if my orders were not complied with, the Minister would seek to have the application of that applicant dismissed with costs pursuant to O10 r 7(1)(a). 

4                     There was no compliance with the orders that I made in relation to any of the ten applications.  When these matters were called on for hearing today, applicant S1076 appeared, but none of the other nine applicants appeared. 

5                     I am satisfied that at least one letter written by the Minister to each applicant was received by that applicant, since there was evidence that at least one letter addressed to each applicant had not been returned to the Minister.  In the circumstances, it appears that none of the applicants intends to proceed with the application made in his or her name.  Accordingly, I propose to accede to the Minister’s application to dismiss each of the applications pursuant to O 10 r 7, for want of compliance with my direction. 

Associate:

Dated:              6 April 2005