DPM17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 2189 (5 August 2020)

Last Updated: 12 August 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DPM17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2020] FCCA 2189

Catchwords: MIGRATION – Advice by Counsel for the applicant that he would be unable to continue to act on behalf of the applicant – matter adjourned back to Registrar for listing before Judge who was seized of the matter – orders accordingly.

Applicant:

DPM17

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

MLG 1745 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Egan

Hearing date:

5 August 2020

Date of Last Submission:

5 August 2020

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

5 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Aleksov

Solicitors for the Applicant:

WLW Migration Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mills Oakley Lawyers

Second Respondent:

Submitting appearance save as to costs

ORDERS

(1) The hearing listed on 8 September 2020 at 9.45am be vacated.

(2) The applicant’s representative be granted leave to withdraw from the proceeding.

(3) This matter be adjourned to the Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Melbourne to a date to be fixed, for the purpose of the listing of the matter for further hearing before His Honour Judge Riethmuller.

(4) The costs of and incidental to the hearing today be reserved.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

MLG 1745 of 2017

DPM17

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter came on for directions before this Court today. Mr Aleksov of Counsel appeared pro bono on behalf of the Applicant. Ms Roberts appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.
2. Mr Aleksov raised with the Court the prospect that he would be unable to continue to represent the Applicant in this matter. The matter was stood down at which time he sought instructions. When the matter was next called on for hearing Mr Aleksov advised that he would be withdrawing as Counsel.
3. In those circumstances, the Court was faced with the prospect of having to adjourn the final hearing which was listed for 8 September 2020 due to the likelihood that the Applicant would be a self-represented litigant at the time of any such hearing.
4. As it transpired, at the directions hearing before the Court today, it was observed that various pieces of correspondence had been received into evidence at a previous hearing of the Court by His Honour Judge Riethmuller on 13 February 2019. His Honour, on that occasion, so the Court was advised by Ms Roberts, was confronted with a situation whereby as a result of submissions made by the Applicant, orders were made for the issue of a subpoena to Salvos Legal, as well as an order for the issue of a referral certificate for the provision of legal assistance to the Applicant in respect of the Applicant’s claim.
5. Ms Roberts agreed with the Court that in such circumstances, it was His Honour Judge Riethmuller who was seized of the matter, such that any further substantive hearing, and any interlocutory hearing required to be had in the matter before any such hearing, ought to be before His Honour Judge Riethmuller.
6. In those circumstances, it is appropriate that the matter be adjourned to the Registrar for the purpose of the relisting of the final hearing of the matter before His Honour Judge Riethmuller. In that regard, this Court notes that the originating application relied upon by the Applicant has for some three years remained unparticularised. That is a regrettable situation which ought not to have occurred.
7. It is appropriate that the costs of and incidental to the directions hearing today be reserved.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Egan

Associate:

Date: 11 August 2020