Goldie v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 687

Goldie v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 687

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to appear or prosecute his case following his departure from Australia and the relief sought had become futile; further, his absence was continuing even after adjournments to allow him to respond.

Parties
Applicant: Brian Gerald James Goldie; First Respondent: Phillip Maxwell Ruddock, Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Allan Piper, Chief Executive Officer, Department of Justice (WA)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief / Dismissal for Non Appearance and Non Prosecution
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Mandamus, Declaratory Relief, Immigration Detention, Service of Court Documents, Summary Judgment
Administrative Law Migration Law Mandamus Declaratory Relief Immigration Detention Service of Court Documents Summary Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Gerald James Goldie

Applicant

Phillip Maxwell Ruddock, Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Allan Piper, Chief Executive Officer, Department of Justice (WA)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief / Dismissal for Non Appearance and Non Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended application should be dismissed due to the applicant's non-appearance and non-prosecution
  2. 2 Whether e-mail delivery of notices of motion constitutes valid service under Federal Court Rules
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought remained relevant given the applicant's departure from Australia

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to appear or prosecute his case following his departure from Australia and the relief sought had become futile; further, his absence was continuing even after adjournments to allow him to respond.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs except for costs incurred between 10 – 24 April 2002.