CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor [2014] HCATrans 213 (24 September 2014)

Last Updated: 1 October 2014

[2014] HCATrans 213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S169 of 2014

B e t w e e n -

CPCF

Plaintiff

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Defendant

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Second Defendant

For Pronouncement of Reasons
for Decision

HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON WEDNESDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2014, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR: On 21 August 2014, I gave directions for the filing and service of written submissions by parties and interveners in this matter. The defendants now ask that those directions be varied to permit them to file and serve written submissions not exceeding 35 pages. The plaintiff opposes that application but submits that, if it is granted, the plaintiff should have leave to file and serve submissions in reply not exceeding 10 pages. The parties agree that the dispute about varying the directions can be determined without oral hearing.

The defendants submit that they should be permitted to file longer submissions than fixed by those directions because the Australian Human Rights Commission (“the AHRC”) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) seek leave to intervene in the proceedings in support of the plaintiff. The defendants submit that:

if the proposed interveners are granted leave to intervene, the [d]efendants will need to deal with and respond to 55 pages of submissions, and a case which is larger in scope than, and different in substantive respects from, the case which they would face if leave is refused”.

I do not accept that it is shown that the proposed interventions would, if allowed, change the size or nature of the dispute between the parties. If either or both of the AHRC and the UNHCR is or are granted leave to make submissions at the hearing of this matter by the Full Court, it is probable that those submissions would add to what the plaintiff has said in his submissions. But the issues joined by the parties would remain unaltered. In this respect, the proceedings are no different from any other proceeding in the Court in which there are intervening parties.

No sufficient reason is shown for varying the page limits fixed by the directions of 21 August 2014. Those limits accorded with the requirements of Part 44 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The application to vary the directions given on 21 August 2014 is refused.

The text of the reasons I have just pronounced I will initial and they remain on the file. Adjourn the Court.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED