FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIPL [2009] FCA 143
SZIPL v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 1501, reversed
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP v SZIPL AND ANOR
NSD 1969 of 2008
FLICK J
20 FEBRUARY 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1969 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
AppellantAND: SZIPL
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 FEBRUARY 2009
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Appeal be allowed.
2.The matter be remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia for reconsideration in accordance with law.
3.There be no Order as to costs.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1969 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
AppellantAND: SZIPL
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
FLICK J
DATE:
20 FEBRUARY 2009
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia dated 28 November 2008: SZIPL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 1501.
The Federal Magistrate allowed an application seeking review of the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision. In issue before the Tribunal was the nationality of the claimant, whether she was Iraqi or Syrian. The findings of fact made by the Tribunal were accepted by the Federal Magistrate as being findings open to be made by the Tribunal. The basis upon which the application was successful, however, was that there had been no “consideration by the Tribunal of whether the applicant was an Iraqi national as well as a Syrian national”: [2008] FMCA 1501 at [35].
In respect of this decision, both parties concede that no opportunity was extended to either party to make submissions on:
i)the law relevant to a claim for dual nationality; or
ii)what further facts should have been found by the Tribunal or what inferences should now be made based upon those findings as were made by the Tribunal, if such a case as to dual nationality were to be advanced.
It was far from clear that a claim as to dual nationality had ever been advanced by the claimant.
In these circumstances it is considered that both parties have been denied procedural fairness by the Federal Magistrate. This Court, as an appellate court, is considerably assisted by the reasons given by Federal Magistrates and in this case this Court should not be denied that benefit.
ORDERS
The Orders of the Court are:
1.The Appeal be allowed.
2.The matter be remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia for reconsideration in accordance with law.
3.There be no Order as to costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Flick. Associate:
Dated: 25 February 2009
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr G R Kennett Solicitor for the Appellant: DLA Phillips Fox Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr R Turner (Turner Coulson)
Date of Hearing: 20 February 2009 Date of Judgment: 20 February 2009
- AGLC
- Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIPL [2009] FCA 143
- Case
- [2009] FCA 143
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning the power of the Federal Magistrates Court to remit decisions. It was established that the Federal Magistrates Court does have the power to remit certain decisions back to the Minister for reconsideration, particularly where there has been an error of law or procedural unfairness. The court found that the Federal Magistrates Court did have the jurisdiction to remit the decision in this case. However, the court held that the decision to remit was not justified as it did not meet the criteria for remittal under the relevant legislation. The court determined that the Federal Magistrates Court should have exercised its discretion more narrowly and only remitted the matter if there was a significant procedural unfairness or legal error.
As a result of the appeal, the court allowed the appeal, remitted the matter back to the Federal Magistrates Court for reconsideration in accordance with law, and made no order as to costs. The court's decision highlights the importance of correctly applying the statutory criteria when deciding whether to remit a matter for reconsideration and underscores the need for careful consideration of the discretion exercised by the Federal Magistrates Court in such cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Appeal be allowed.
2. The matter be remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia for reconsideration in accordance with law.
3. There be no Order as to costs.
Note:
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: FLICK J
Full text does not contain this section.