GALUAK
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR
[2024] HCASL 22
M13/2023
By an amended application for removal filed on 20 December 2023, the applicant applies for an order under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) removing part of the cause that is currently pending in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia which is proceeding number VID 441 of 2022, concerning the scope of the valid application of s 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).
The amended application for removal does not identify sufficient reason to warrant this Court's interference with the ordinary progression of proceedings in the Full Court, including the consideration by that court of this Court's judgment in Jones v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] HCA 34; (2023) 97 ALJR 936. In the circumstances, the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient cause for an order for removal. Accordingly, the application for removal should be refused.
The applicant has also filed an interlocutory application seeking expedition of this application for removal. The reply submissions of the applicant were filed on 25 January 2024. The application for removal having now been refused, the application for expedition must also be dismissed.
The application for removal is refused with costs.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
8 February 2024
- AGLC
- Galuak v Minister For Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2024] HCASL 22
- Case
- [2024] HCASL 22
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the High Court should interfere with the ordinary progression of proceedings in the Full Court and whether there was sufficient cause for the removal of the matter. The applicant argued that the Full Court's consideration of this Court's judgment in Jones v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] HCA 34 warranted the transfer. The court had to assess the merits of this argument and determine whether the application met the threshold for removal.
The court found that the application for removal did not identify sufficient reason for the High Court to interfere with the Full Court's proceedings. The court noted that the Full Court was in the process of considering the relevant legal principles and that Galuak had not demonstrated sufficient cause for removal. As such, the application was refused. Additionally, the interlocutory application for expedition was dismissed as the application for removal had already been refused.
The final orders of the court were that the application for removal was refused with costs. This decision reinforces the principle that the High Court will not lightly interfere with the ordinary progression of proceedings in lower courts.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.