Opanayaka Mudiyanselage v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 62 (27 February 2004)

Last Updated: 19 March 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Opanayaka Mudiyanselage v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 62

MAHESH ROY SUSANTHA OPANAYAKA MUDIYANSELAGE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

V 620 of 2003


WHITLAM, MARSHALL and FINKELSTEIN JJ
MELBOURNE
27 FEBRUARY 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 620 of 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	MAHESH ROY SUSANTHA OPANAYAKA MUDIYANSELAGE APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MARSHALL and FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	27 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s taxed costs of the appeal.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 620 of 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	MAHESH ROY SUSANTHA OPANAYAKA MUDIYANSELAGE APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MARSHALL and FINKELSTEIN JJ
	27 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1 When this appeal was called on for hearing this morning the appellant did not appear. A possible explanation is that he is ill. That explanation suggests itself simply because messages were conveyed by telephone to the respondent’s solicitors and to staff of the Court yesterday by someone claiming to be the appellant that he was unwell and would not be able to attend today. This person was told that, nonetheless, he should appear so that the question of his fitness to conduct any proceedings could be dealt with by the Court. In the circumstances counsel for the respondent has asked that the appeal be dismissed. In our opinion, it is appropriate that an order should be made under O 52 r 38A(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Whitlam, Marshall and Finkelstein.

Associate:

Dated: 19 March 2004



The appellant did not appear

Counsel for the respondent:	C J Horan
Solicitors for the respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of hearing:	27 February 2004
Date of judgment:	27 February 2004