FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Buultjens v Robertson [2009] FCA 1537
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 351, 476A
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A
Raikua v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2007) 158 FCR 510 referred to
LLEWELLYN FREDRICK BUULTJENS v STUART ROBERTSON
VID 850 of 2009
MARSHALL J
18 DECEMBER 2009
MELBOURNE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
|
|
general division |
VID 850 of 2009 |
|
LLEWELLYN FREDRICK BUULTJENS Applicant
|
|
|
AND: |
STUART ROBERTSON Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
18 DECEMBER 2009 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
MELBOURNE |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
|
|
general division |
VID 850 of 2009 |
|
BETWEEN: |
LLEWELLYN FREDRICK BUULTJENS Applicant
|
|
AND: |
STUART ROBERTSON Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
MARSHALL J |
|
DATE: |
18 DECEMBER 2009 |
|
PLACE: |
MELBOURNE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The applicant, Mr Buultjens, has commenced a proceeding in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, Mr Robertson, to submit to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship the applicant’s request for special ministerial intervention under s 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
2 The Minister had previously considered and rejected a request by the applicant that he intervene under s 351 of the Act to permit the applicant to remain in Australia.
3 The respondent has objected to the competency of the application. The application, he submits, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court due to the operation of s 476A of the Act. That section limits the Court’s jurisdiction in migration matters to those set out in s 476A(1); see Beyazkilinc v Manager, Baxter Immigration Reception & Processing Centre (2006) 155 FCR 465 at [51]–[52] per Besanko J. See also Raikua v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2007) 158 FCR 510 at [64] per Lindgren J.
4 As the decision sought to be challenged is not one referred to in s 476A(1) of the Act, the respondent’s objection to the competency of the application is made out. The proceeding is dismissed pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) as the Court is satisfied that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceeding.
5 The order of the Court is that the application is dismissed with costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.
|
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall. |
Associate:
Dated: 18 December 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Mr N Rogers |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Australian Government Solicitor |
|
Date of Hearing: |
18 December 2009 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
18 December 2009 |
