Applicant C v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1489 (17 October 2000)

Last Updated: 29 March 2001

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant C v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1489

APPLICANT C v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 1033 OF 2000

MOORE J

17 OCTOBER 2000

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1033 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT C APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent file and serve a bundle of relevant documents on or before 27 October 2000.

2. Subject to further order, these proceedings be transferred to the Western Australia District Registry of the Court.

3. The applicant have liberty to apply within 14 days of being served with these orders for the revocation of order 1 and/or an order re-transferring the proceedings to the New South Wales District Registry.

4. The respondent serve on the applicant a copy of these orders and a copy translated into Arabic, within 7 days.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1033 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT C APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	17 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 On 25 September 2000 an application was filed by facsimile in the New South Wales District Registry of the Federal Court of Australia. The application so filed was an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa.

2 There is nothing apparent on the face of the application why it was filed in the New South Wales District Registry, given that the applicant is in detention at the Curtin Detention Centre in Derby, Western Australia. However, as I apprehend the Federal Court Rules, there is nothing to prevent a person located or resident in any state of the Commonwealth filing by facsimile an application in a District Registry other than the District Registry of the state in which the person is located or resident.

3 There are obvious difficulties associated with the hearing of this matter in the New South Wales District Registry. Firstly, there is a time difference between New South Wales and Western Australia which can cause inconvenience although that is not an insuperable problem. In addition, the Western Australian District Registry regularly, as I understand the position, deals with applications of this type concerning applicants in detention in the north west of Western Australia and has in place procedures for both directions hearings and final hearings of such applications.

4 At the moment there is no reason apparent to me why it is appropriate that this matter be heard and determined in the New South Wales District Registry of this Court. There are, as I have just indicated, reasons why it is more appropriate for the matter to be dealt with in the Western Australian District Registry though those reasons do not dictate that the matter should be dealt with in that state.

5 There have been some difficulties associated with having a hearing in which the applicant could appear and put his point of view and perhaps explain why it is that the matter was filed in the New South Wales District Registry rather than the Registry in Western Australia. Thus the position of the applicant is not known.

6 What I propose to do in those circumstances is make an order transferring the matter to the Western Australian District Registry but with a qualification intended to permit the applicant, if there is a reason of substance why the matter should be heard in the New South Wales District Registry, to make application to achieve that result. I should make it plain that in making the order transferring the proceedings, I am doing so on the basis that I have not heard the applicant and the decision I have made is intended to be without prejudice to his rights to make an application to revoke the order.

7 I order firstly that the respondent file and serve a bundle of relevant documents on or before 27 October 2000. Secondly, subject to further order, these proceedings be transferred to the Western Australian District Registry of the Court. Thirdly, the applicant have liberty to apply within 14 days of being served with these orders for the revocation of order 1 and/or an order retransferring the proceedings to the New South Wales District Registry. Fourthly, the respondent serve on the applicant a copy of these orders and a copy translated into Arabic within 7 days.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated: 17 October 2000

The applicant did not appear.
Solicitor for the respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Judgment:	17 October 2000