Palu, Ex parte - Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Ors M23/1999 [1999] HCATrans 406 (11 October 1999)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne No M23 of 1999

In the matter of -

An application for Writs of Mandamus and a Writ of Prohibition and an Injunction against THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

The Officer of the Commonwealth who was ACTING HIGH COMMISSIONER at the Australian High Commission in Nuku Alofa in Tonga on 6 November 1998 (in his capacity as a delegate of the First Respondent for granting visas under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth))

Second Respondent

CARLOS BAGNATO (in his capacity as an Officer for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth))

Third Respondent

Ex parte -

VILIAMI PALU

Prosecutor/Applicant

HAYNE J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON MONDAY, 11 OCTOBER 1999, AT 11.01 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

_________________

MR T.V. HURLEY: Your Honour, I appear on behalf of the prosecutor/applicant in this matter. (instructed by Erskine Rodan & Associates)

MR R.R.S. TRACEY, QC: If your Honour pleases, I appear on behalf of the respondent Minister. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR: Where are we up to with this one?

MR HURLEY: Your Honour, in the light of the discussions your Honour has been having with earlier matters, the appropriate orders in this matter are similar to the ones that your Honour made in Nos 1 to 32, in our submission, that the matter be adjourned for further mention at 9.30 on 22 November. By that time, as your Honour will have seen in the material, there is a decision in the Full Court of the Federal Court that my instructor and I are in that may resolve a lot of the issues raised by this application.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Are you of the same view, Mr Tracey?

MR TRACEY: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Then if orders are made in the same terms as were made in the first 32 matters and the matters of Metohu and Zanaj adjourning the matter over to 22 November. You, Mr Hurley, will have to put on something that reveals your grounds, the remedies, questions of enlargement and whether the matter should be remitted. Is that right?

MR HURLEY: I do not object to doing that, your Honour, but it was our understanding that the grounds were specifically clear. The only problem was really, in light of the Full Court Federal Court decision, whether they would be overtaken or allowed.

HIS HONOUR: Would it suffice, Mr Hurley, if I said that you should file and serve a summary of argument on or before 12 November 1999 setting out the grounds on which the decision the subject of the application is challenged, the remedies sought, the reasons applicable for any enlargement of time to enable particular remedies to be sought, and whether the matter should be remitted to any, and which, court. No doubt that document will be very brief if it is simply a question of referring to other documents on the file. But it will give me a single document that will enable me to see where you are up to, I think, and there would be advantage in doing that. Then adjourn the matter for mention on 22 November at 9.30; reserving costs and certifying. Are you content with that?

MR HURLEY: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Tracey?

MR TRACEY: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. There will be orders in those terms.

AT 11.04 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED