NALO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 114 (2 February 2004)

Last Updated: 20 February 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NALO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 114

MIGRATION – no point of law.




























NALO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 2352 OF 2003



CONTI J
2 FEBRUARY 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 2352 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NALO APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from the judgement handed down by Wilcox J on 29 September be dismissed.

2. The appellant to pay the Minister’s costs assessed at $1,200.00.

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 2352 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NALO APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE:	2 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an application for an extension of time to appeal against the judgment and orders of Wilcox J entered and made on 29 September 2003 dismissing an application to set aside orders made on 15 May 2003 with costs. Those orders, which were made on an interlocutory basis, dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘RRT’) made on 24 February 2003, which affirmed in turn a decision of the delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2 The background to the appeal is set out in his Honour’s reasons for judgment of 29 September 2003. In particular, his Honour found that ‘it is clear that no issue of jurisdictional error arises’ from the decision of the RRT, and further that ‘[i]t follows that the application is doomed to failure’.

3 I entirely agree with the appropriateness of and reasons for his Honour’s decision. The present application constitutes a deliberate, indeed outrageous, attempt to delay the implementation of earlier orders of the court, without the remotest basis or justification. Both the proceedings before his Honour and now before me were brought obviously out of time, and of course upon the basis of exemption from payment of Court fees. I would draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the decision of the RRT was given nearly 12 months ago and it is quite apparent that the applicant is seeking to use whatever means at his disposal to delay the implementation of that decision at considerable cost to the Minister, to the inconvenience of the Court in the sense that valuable time is being taken up in dealing with a hopeless application, and ultimately at the cost of the Australian taxpayer. If this abuse of process was adopted on the advice of a migration agent, that agent should be reported to the relevant authority for disciplinary action.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Conti.

Associate:

Dated: 19 February 2004

Appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	2 February 2004
Date of Judgment:	2 February 2004