Ullah v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1207
The applicant failed to provide particulars of any error of law as required, and did not comply with a court order to amend his application accordingly; therefore, the application should be dismissed with costs, with a period allowed to seek a setting aside of the orders.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Applicant: Shahid Ullah; Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 August 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Order of Review / Judgment After Directions Hearing
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs, subject to possible setting aside
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Refugee Status, Error of Law
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shahid Ullah
Applicant
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Order of Review / Judgment After Directions Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant provided sufficient particulars of an alleged error of law by the Tribunal
- 2 Whether the application should be dismissed for non-compliance with previous court orders
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to provide particulars of any error of law as required, and did not comply with a court order to amend his application accordingly; therefore, the application should be dismissed with costs, with a period allowed to seek a setting aside of the orders.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs, subject to possible setting aside
Orders
- The application be dismissed.
- The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ullah v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1207 SHAHID ULLAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 645 of 2000 LINDGREN J 22 AUGUST 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 645 OF 2000
BETWEEN: SHAHID ULLAH
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER: 22 AUGUST 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed; 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs; 3. Orders 1 and 2 not be entered if, by 13 September 2000, the applicant files a notice of motion seeking an order setting aside orders 1 and 2. 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 645 OF 2000
BETWEEN: SHAHID ULLAH
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: LINDGREN J
DATE: 22 AUGUST 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I ordered on 2 August 2000, when the applicant did not appear, that by 16 August 2000 the applicant file and serve an amended application providing particulars of the grounds of review relied upon, including particulars of any error of law relied upon, and I stood over the proceeding to today at 9.30 am. I also noted that it was the Court's intention to dismiss the application today if the amended application had not been filed, or if today there was again no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. I also directed the respondent to notify the applicant of the making of the orders. 2 The Australian Government Solicitor wrote to the applicant on 2 August 2000 informing him of the orders made that day and the applicant, who appears this morning, acknowledges having received that letter. But he has not filed an amended application or otherwise provided particulars of the grounds of review relied on. 3 The application for the order of review as filed set out as the "grounds" of the application the following: "That the respondent exercised power under section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and decided that I am not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugee Convention. I certainly believe that the Department of Immigration as well as the Refugee Review Tribunal has certainly made an error of law, being an error involving an incorrect interpretation of the application of the law to the facts as found by the person who made the decision." Clearly someone assisted the applicant to the extent of making him aware of the ground of review provided for in paragraph (e) of subs 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 4 The applicant seems to be under the impression that this Court has power to overcome the adverse decision given against him by the Tribunal for no reason other than that this Court disagrees with that decision on the merits. He has not, beyond merely reciting the "error of law" ground, given particulars of any error of law allegedly committed by the Tribunal. I appreciate of course that he has been without legal assistance. 5 I do not think that an injustice will be done if I dismiss the application (with costs) under O10 subr 3(2) and par 7(1)(a), but direct that the order of dismissal not be entered for a period of 21 days to allow the applicant the opportunity to file a notice of motion seeking a setting aside of today's orders. I should note that I am informed that the Australian Government Solicitor has provided the applicant with particulars of sources of pro bono assistance and my Associate will do the same this morning. 6 For the above reasons the Court orders that: 1. the application be dismissed; 2. the applicant pay the respondent's costs; 3. orders 1 and 2 not be entered if, by 13 September 2000, the applicant files a notice of motion seeking an order setting aside orders 1 and 2. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.
Associate: Dated: 29 August 2000
The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr A Markus of the Australian Government Solicitor's Office
Date of Hearing: 22 August 2000
Date of Judgment: 22 August 2000