//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2004] FCA 904
Federal Court of Australia
2004-04-30
Haydon J, Emmett J
Original judgment source is linked above.
S69 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 904 S69 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N2599 OF 2003 EMMETT J 30 APRIL 2004 SYDNEY
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
ELIZABETH JENSEN, MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
ELIZABETH JENSEN, MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 27 February 2003 the applicant filed an affidavit in the High Court of Australia to which there was annexed a draft order nisi seeking constitutional writ relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') given on 12 March 1998 affirming a decision of the Minister not to grant protection visas to the applicants. The affidavit does not disclose any facts that would constitute grounds of review other than an assertion that there was a breach of the rules of natural justice, an error of law, failure to observe procedures required by law, the improper exercise of power and the absence of evidence to justify the making of the decision. 2 On 25 August 2003 Haydon J ordered that the matter be remitted to this Court. The matter was listed for call over today. On 29 April 2004 the applicant filed a document entitled Amended Application which specifies totally different grounds of review. No leave was given to file the document called an Amended Application. The Minister asks that the Court refuse an order nisi on the basis of the material that was remitted to this Court by the High Court. The refusal of an order nisi at this stage would not preclude the applicants from commencing an appropriately formulated proceeding for relief if they have a case for such relief. 3 No application had previously been filed to this Court, hence the document entitled Amended Application is a complete misnomer. The solicitor for the applicants contends that the grounds specified in the so-called Amended Application are available without any further evidence. Be that as it may, the matter which is before the Court on remitter is the application for an order nisi. I consider that the application should be refused. That, of course, would not preclude the applicants from commencing proceedings, as I have said, seeking such relief as they are entitled. 4 It may well be, of course, that the delays that have occurred may mitigate against the grant of relief. That, however, would be a matter for the Court if such an application were to be made.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.
S69 of 2003
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs