FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDQU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous
Affairs [2005] FCA 82
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 25(2B)(ba), 25(2B)(bb)(ii).
SZDQU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 6 of 2005
CONTI J
8 FEBRUARY 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 06 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZDQU
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
CONTI J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 FEBRUARY 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $600.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 06 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZDQU
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
CONTI J
DATE:
8 FEBRUARY 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter a notice of appeal was filed on 4 January 2005 from the whole of the judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett on 17 December 2004.
The appellant's name has been called outside and it is apparent that the appellant is not present in the courtroom or precincts of the court.
Attached to the notice of appeal was a direction that the hearing in the nature of a directions hearing would take place today on 8 February 2005 at 4.20pm.
The notice of appeal, I might observe, does not on the face of it contain material prima facie suggestive of a viable ground of appeal. It is couched in generalities and does not refer to material facts in any particularity at all.
The application of the solicitor for the respondent is that the appeal be struck out pursuant to either section 25(2B) paragraph (ba) or paragraph (bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
In those circumstances I grant the application of the respondent Minister and I dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure of the appellant to attend a hearing relating to the appeal and otherwise on the basis I have already indicated, namely, that the notice of appeal does not purport to demonstrate any viable ground of appeal.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Conti. Associate:
Dated: 14 February 2005
Appellant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 8 February 2005 Date of Judgment: 8 February 2005
- AGLC
- Affairs [2005] FCA 82
- Case
- [2005] FCA 82
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge correctly exercised their discretion in ordering the appellant to pay the respondent's legal costs. The court considered the nature of the case, the conduct of the parties, and the outcome of the proceedings. The court also had to consider whether the primary judge's decision was reasonable and just.
The court found that the primary judge's decision was correct. The court held that the primary judge had considered all relevant factors in exercising their discretion and had come to a reasonable decision. The court also found that the appellant's conduct during the proceedings was unreasonable and unjustified. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $600.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $600.
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
Established by: CONTI J
Full text does not contain this section.