CZAM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 987

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CZAM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 987

CZAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

ACD 9 OF 2006

STONE J
1 AUGUST 2006
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 9 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

CZAM
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

STONE J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 AUGUST 2006

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.  The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs.
3. The applicant not file any further proceedings in relation to his application for a protection visa in this Court without the leave of the Court.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 9 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

CZAM
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	1 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant in this matter seeks an extension of time in which to appeal from the judgment of Mowbray FM in which his Honour dismissed his application on the bases of res judicata, Anshun estoppel and abuse of process (CZAM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 327).

2. The applicant's claims have a long history in the federal judicial and administrative systems.  His claim for a protection visa was rejected by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, and this decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 29 January 2003.  His application to this Court was rejected by Branson J on 22 September 2003.  An appeal from her Honour's decision was dismissed by Emmett J because of the applicant's failure to file and serve an amended notice of appeal as ordered by the Court.  Similarly, two applications to the High Court of Australia were dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the Court’s orders for the filing of documents.

3. The applicant then instituted proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court.  His application was dismissed by Barnes FM on 15 June 2005 on the bases of res judicata and Anshun estoppel and as an abuse of process.  In this Court, Gyles J refused his application for leave to appeal from her Honour's decision. 

4. The applicant again commenced proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court.  His application came before Mowbray FM, who, as discussed above, dismissed it, ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent and also ordered that the applicant not file any future proceedings in relation to the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal without the leave of the Court.

5. The applicant did not appear at the hearing of the present application.  He has provided to the Court an outline of submissions, as well as a document that he claims is a copy of the transcript of the Refugee Review Tribunal hearing.  There is no basis on which it would be appropriate for me to consider the transcript.  The issue before the Court is whether the Federal Magistrate was right to dismiss the matter on the grounds on which he did.  A review of the transcript will not assist in that determination.  Similarly, the applicant's outline of submissions seeks only to canvass the merits of his application and the procedure before the Tribunal, issues which have been considered in the various applications to which I have already referred.

6. In my view, the Federal Magistrate was correct to make the orders he did, and the present application must be dismissed.  The first respondent seeks two additional orders: first, that the applicant pay costs on an indemnity basis, and secondly, that the applicant be prevented from instituting further proceedings in this Court in relation to the applications to which I have referred, without the leave of the Court.

7. In relation to indemnity costs, I am not satisfied that there has been the requisite abuse of the processes of the Court that would require the payment of indemnity costs.  It is fairly clear to me, from reading the material, that the applicant has very little understanding of court processes and the finality attending them.  In my view there is not a sufficient basis on which to order indemnity costs.  It is, however, appropriate that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs on the usual basis.

8. Ultimately, whether or not the respondent understands the processes of a court, it is clearly time that this matter be given as much finality as I can provide by appropriate orders.  I am therefore prepared to make the order in relation to filing future proceedings that the first respondent seeks. 

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone.

Associate:

Dated:            3 August 2006

Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	1 August 2006
Date of Judgment:	1 August 2006