FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant S1580 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 794
APPLICANT S1580 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 741 OF 2006MOORE J
14 JUNE 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 741 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT S1580 OF 2003
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second RespondentJUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
14 JUNE 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1500.00.
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 741 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT S1580 OF 2003
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
14 JUNE 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 30 March 2006 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 10 February 1999: see S1580 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 507. The proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court had been preceded by other proceedings in this Court and the High Court. Those proceedings included an application for judicial review of the same Tribunal decision which was heard in this Court by Drummond J and determined in the applicant's favour on 17 August 1999. The Minister appealed that decision to the Full Court which allowed the appeal on 30 June 2000. Previous litigation also included proceedings in the High Court in relation to a prior Tribunal decision of 12 February 1998 which had in fact already been set aside and remitted to the Tribunal (resulting in the Tribunal decision of 10 February 1999). The High Court remitted those proceedings to this Court where they were dealt with by Emmett J who, on 20 February 2004, refused an application for an order nisi.
The Federal Magistrate concluded that the proceedings before him were an abuse of process and also that an Anshun estoppel arose. His Honour also found that it was also a case of res judicata since the matter had been decided by the Full Court of this Court. His Honour made an order restraining the applicant from commencing any proceedings for review of either Tribunal decision without leave of the Court.
It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the applications for the reasons his Honour gave. Accordingly, this application for leave to appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the applicant has no prospects of success in any appeal if leave were granted. Accordingly, I dismiss the application. The applicant is ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1500.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate:
Dated: 13 July 2006
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Mantziaris Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 14 June 2006 Date of Judgment: 14 June 2006
- AGLC
- Applicant S1580 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 794
- Case
- [2006] FCA 794
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, who was in detention, had the right to appeal the decision of the Minister. This issue was of particular importance as it concerned the interpretation of section 424 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which outlines the process for appealing decisions made under the Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the applicant's detention status affected their right to appeal.
The court considered the statutory provisions and found that the applicant's detention did not impede their right to appeal. The court reasoned that the statutory framework allowed for appeals regardless of detention status, and therefore the applicant had the right to appeal the Minister's decision. However, the court also noted that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was not in the appropriate form and did not comply with the necessary legal standards. As a result, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.
The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1500.00.
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: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.