Plaintiff S345/2006 v MIMA & Anor [2006] HCATrans 589 (30 October 2006)

--

Plaintiff S345/2006 v MIMA & Anor [2006] HCATrans 589 (30 October 2006)

Last Updated: 31 October 2006

[2006] HCATrans 589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S345 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

PLAINTIFF S345/2006

Plaintiff

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Defendant

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Defendant

Summons for directions

HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 30 OCTOBER 2006, AT 9.40 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR L.J. KARP: If your Honour please, I appear for the plaintiff. (instructed by Christopher Levingston & Associates)

MR B.D. O’DONNELL: If your Honour please, I appear for the first defendant. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR: Your desire, Mr Karp, is simply for your application in effect to stand adjourned until Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration has been decided by the Full Court?

MR KARP: It is, your Honour. I understand that is the position of the defendant as well.

HIS HONOUR: I do not think I need trouble you further then.

The plaintiff has filed an application for an order that the defendants show cause why section 486A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is invalid as being inconsistent with section 75 of the Constitution. Whether section 486A is invalid is a question which will be considered by a Full Court after a hearing on 14 December 2006 of Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The plaintiff applies today for an order that the application for an order to show cause be adjourned until after the Court has delivered judgment in Bodruddaza’s Case. A similar course was adopted by the Chief Justice on 11 October 2006 in Plaintiff S295/2006 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Another [2006] HCATrans 567. Accordingly, I order:

1. That the proceedings be adjourned until the Court has delivered judgment in Bodruddaza’s Case;

2. That each party have liberty to restore the proceedings to the list on seven days notice to the others;

3. That the costs of today’s proceedings be costs in the cause.

Are both sides happy with those orders?

MR KARP: Yes, your Honour.

MR O’DONNELL: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: As far as you are concerned, they are made by consent?

MR O’DONNELL: Yes indeed, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I note that those orders are made by consent. Thank you, gentlemen.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED