//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2005] FCA 1586
Federal Court of Australia
2005-11-09
Emmett J
Original judgment source is linked above.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. On 18 December 1998, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). On 28 January 1999, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused the application. On 16 February 1999, the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') for review of the delegate's decision. The applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal on 10 May 2000. On 26 May 2000, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. 2 The applicant commenced a proceeding in the High Court of Australia by filing a draft order nisi on 28 May 2003, together with an affidavit affirmed on 27 May 2003. The matter was remitted to this Court pursuant to an order of the High Court following the decision of Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30. 3 On 12 November 2004, the District Registrar of the Federal Court wrote to the applicant, inviting him to make written submissions on the question of whether there is an arguable case for the grant of the relief claimed by the draft order nisi in the material before the Court. There has been no response to that letter. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the application for an Order nisi be dealt with without any oral hearing or argument and for Order 51A rule 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules to be dispensed with (see Applicant s195 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1571). 4 The grounds upon which relief was claimed in the draft order nisi were as follows: '(a) the respective member of the first respondent did not follow the proper procedure as required by the Migration Act 1958. Thus the procedures that were required by the Act or the regulations to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed.
(b) An "Error of Law" and "Jurisdictional Error" and lack of "Procedural Fairness" affected the first respondent's decision.
(c) there was no evidence or other material to justify in making of the decision.
(d) I was denied "Natural Justice" in being denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard in an unbiased environment on his application before the second respondent.
(e) there has been a constructive failure of jurisdiction by the second respondent's agent Mr Keith Dixon as in the decision of 28 January 1999 failed to address the correct legal questions committed to his by not applying himself to all the issues he was required to consider in determining the matter before him.
(f) there was a failure of the second respondent's agent to exercise him (sic) jurisdiction in the decision of 28 January 1999 because he did not reach a state of satisfaction bases upon a correct understanding of the law on which he acts. (g) the decision of the second respondent's agent on 28 January 1999 was made in breach of rules of "Natural Justice".' No particulars were provided. The applicant's affidavit claims that the Minister did not send any documents or information in relation to his claim to the Tribunal before it made its decision. The applicant also claims that he was misled by the Minister to believe that the Tribunal had the documents and that, had he been aware that they were not before the Tribunal, he would have taken steps to correct the situation. However, in the Tribunal's reasons it clearly states that it has before it the Minister's file, the applicant's protection visa application and written submissions in support of the application. Therefore, there is no substance to the claim. 5 On an application such as this, for orders requiring the respondents to show cause why final relief should not be granted, the purpose of any affidavit in support is to provide material showing that there is at least an arguable case for the grant of the final relief claimed. However, the material must be more than mere pleading or assertion of the right to such relief. The material must contain some evidence of facts that would support the grant of the relief claimed. In the context of the relief claimed by the present applicant, there should be material that would show that it is at least arguable that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in making the Decision, such that orders would be made to quash the Decision and to restrain the Minister from acting on the Decision. The material presently before the Court does not disclose an arguable case, in that sense. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.
Associate: Dated: 9 November 2005 Date of Judgment: 9 November 2005
S232 of 2003
Refugee Review Tribunal