Goldman v MIAC & Anor [2008] HCATrans 147 (1 April 2008)

Last Updated: 9 April 2008

[2008] HCATrans 147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S26 of 2008

B e t w e e n -

MICHAEL GOLDMAN

Plaintiff

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Defendant

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Defendant

Application for an order to show cause

KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 1 APRIL 2008, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR S.B. LLOYD: May it please the Court, I appear for the plaintiff. (instructed by Christopher Levingston & Associates)

MR G.T. JOHNSON: Thank you, your Honour, I appear for the first defendant. (instructed by DLA Phillips Fox)

HIS HONOUR: The Court has received an indication from the second defendant, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that it submits to the orders of the Court save as to costs and it is excused. Yes, Mr Lloyd.

MR LLOYD: Your Honour, I have had the advantage of seeing my friend’s submissions and my client is agreeable and content that the Court does have jurisdiction to remit and that a remitter of the whole matter is appropriate.

HIS HONOUR: You seem to be in furious agreement about it now.

MR LLOYD: We do indeed.

MR JOHNSON: That is true, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I have also satisfied myself that that is the correct course to adopt, so that I would intend to remit the whole matter. The question then is the form of the orders that should be made and the Registrar has given me and, I understand, the parties the normal form of order. There is in the written submissions a reservation of an issue concerning any extension of time that is required. Is it appropriate that I add it to the orders here?

MR JOHNSON: Your Honour, I think that the standard orders that we have seen probably achieve what I was seeking to achieve in those submissions. I just wanted to make it clear, your Honour, that that which was being remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court did include - - -

HIS HONOUR: Both the delegate and the Tribunal?

MR JOHNSON: Yes, and that what was being remitted also included any question of costs here and whether an enlargement of time should be granted if an enlargement is necessary but, your Honour, I think that the standard form orders are probably wide enough to capture that. It is a matter for your Honour but perhaps the transcript - - -

HIS HONOUR: I have to protect the parties in relation to any question concerning an enlargement of the time for the bringing of the proceedings to challenge the decision of the delegate, so perhaps there should be added a new 3(a), “any enlargement of the time for the bringing of the proceedings”. Is that agreed?

MR JOHNSON: Sorry, your Honour, those words were - - -

HIS HONOUR: There would be, after the Court orders, “that any enlargement of the time for the bringing of the proceedings be within the remittal”.

MR LLOYD: Yes, your Honour.

MR JOHNSON: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Are you content with the orders in that form, Mr Lloyd?

MR LLOYD: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Which Registry of the Federal Magistrates Court would be appropriate in this case?

MR LLOYD: Sydney, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Is that agreed?

MR JOHNSON: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Very well. I note that the parties are now agreed that the Federal Magistrates Court has jurisdiction and can therefore receive a remittal of the matter from this Court to that court. It is the appropriate and only court which, under the Act, can receive the remittal. Accordingly, the orders that I make are:

1. that these proceedings in their entirety be remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court, Sydney registry;

2. that the proceedings continue in that court as if the steps already taken in the proceedings in this Court had been taken in that court;

3. that the Registrar of this Court forward to the proper officer of that court photocopies of all documents filed in this Court;

4. that any enlargement of the time for the bringing of the proceedings be within the remittal;

5. that the costs of the summons be costs in the proceedings; and

6. that the costs of the proceedings to the date of remittal, including the costs of the orders, are to be in accordance with the scale applicable to the proceedings in this Court and thereafter according to the scale applicable in the Federal Magistrates Court in the discretion of that court.

It is not necessary now to certify for counsel, is that correct?

MR JOHNSON: I think that is so, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. If it were necessary I would, of course, certify because it is the very helpful submissions of counsel and their prior provision to the opposite party and to the Court that have ensured that the matter could be dealt with efficiently.

We will adjourn the Court now.

AT 9.39 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED