Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 38 (24 February 2004)

Last Updated: 27 February 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 38

REHAN AHMED v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
S796 OF 2003

TAMBERLIN, SACKVILLE AND FINN JJ
ADELAIDE
24 FEBRUARY 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S796 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	REHAN AHMED APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	TAMBERLIN, SACKVILLE AND FINN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	24 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The appeal be dismissed.
2.	The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S796 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	REHAN AHMED APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	TAMBERLIN, SACKVILLE AND FINN JJ
DATE:	24 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1 When this appeal was called on for hearing there was no appearance by the appellant and the respondent sought an order under O 52 r 18(3) of the Federal Court Rules ("the Rules") that the appeal be dismissed by the Court as incompetent. In view of the fact that the decision below is interlocutory in character, that leave to appeal is necessary and that no application for leave, or for an extension of time within which to seek leave, has been made, the Court considers that the appeal is incompetent and accordingly dismisses the appeal.

2 The respondent in this matter has applied for costs. The Court considers that in view of the way in which this whole proceeding has been conducted by the appellant since its initiation, this is an appropriate case in which to make an order under O 52 r 18 of the Rules that the appellant pay the costs of the respondent of this appeal.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Tamberlin, Sackville and Finn.

Associate:

Dated: 27 February 2004

No appearance by the Appellant.
Counsel for the Respondent:	K Tredrea
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	24 February 2004
Date of Judgment:	24 February 2004