//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2005] FCA 1684
Federal Court of Australia
2005-11-23
Emmett J
Original judgment source is linked above.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. Having entered Australia on two prior occasions for employment purposes on temporary and conditional visas, the applicant lodged an application on 1 November 1993 a primary application for refugee status under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). This application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, and the applicant notified on 10 November 1993. On 12 November 1993, the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') for review of the decision. On 30 March 1994, 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 20 June 2003, together with an affidavit affirmed on 19 June 2003 seeking relief in respect of the Tribunal's decision. 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. For the reasons set out in Applicant S195 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1571, it is appropriate for this matter to be dealt with on the papers and for Order 51A rule 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules to be dispensed with. 4 The grounds upon which relief was claimed in the draft order nisi were as follows: '(a) The third respondent did not follow the proper procedure as required by the Migration Act 1958. Thus, the procedures that were required by the Act or regulations to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed.
(b) The third respondent's decision was affected by an "error of law" and 'Jurisdictional error' and lack of procedural fairness.
(c) There was no evidence or other material to justify in making of the decision.
(d) The applicant was denied natural justice in being denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard on his application before the first respondent.
(e) There has been a constructive failure of jurisdiction by the first respondent's agent Anthony Nicholas Houen as in the decision of 10 November 1993, failed to address the correct legal question committed to him by not applying himself to all of those issues he was required to consider in determining the matter before him.
(f) There was a failure of the first respondent's agent to exercise his jurisdiction in the decision of 10 November 1993 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 first respondent's agent of 10 November 1993 was made in breach of rules of natural justice.' No particulars were provided. The applicant's affidavit does not develop these complaints further. 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 a 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 Tribunal's 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.
S357 of 2003
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs