FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNVW (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 44
Citation: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNVW (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 44 Appeal from: SZNVW v Minister for Immigration and Anor [2009] FMCA 1299 Parties: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP v SZNVW and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number(s): NSD 96 of 2010 Judges: KEANE CJ, EMMETT AND PERRAM JJ Date of judgment: 20 May 2010 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal – Whether Full Federal Court has power to set aside its own perfected orders – “Slip rule” – Allows rectification of orders where they do not accurately reflect reasons of the court Legislation: Federal Court Rules Or 35, r 7(3) Cases cited: DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226 applied Date of hearing: 31 March 2010 Date of last submissions: 31 March 2010 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Counsel for the Appellant: S B Lloyd SC with T Reilly Solicitor for the Appellant: DLA Phillips Fox Counsel for the First Respondent: N J Williams SC with S Prince Solicitor for the First Respondent: No appearance Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent did not appear
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 96 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
AppellantAND: SZNVW
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGES:
KEANE CJ, EMMETT AND PERRAM JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
20 MAY 2010
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Order 2 made by this Court on 10 May 2010 be set aside.
2.In lieu thereof it be ordered that the orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 22 December 2009 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that:
(a) The applicant's application be dismissed.
(b) The applicant pay the first respondent's 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 Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 96 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
AppellantAND: SZNVW
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGES:
KEANE CJ, EMMETT AND PERRAM JJ
DATE:
20 MAY 2010
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This Court delivered judgment in this matter on 10 May 2010. Order 2 of those orders was in these terms:
2. The decision of the magistrate be set aside.
That order contains two slips. First, the Court below was not the Federal Magistrate but, in fact, the Federal Magistrates Court. Secondly, the orders of the Court did not dispose of the proceeding before that Court. It was the intention of the Court by its earlier reasons that the proceeding before the Federal Magistrates Court should have been dismissed with costs. The orders, by oversight, failed to do this. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to exercise the power under Order 35 rule 7(3) Federal Court Rules which allows a court to rectify perfected orders “when it can be shown that a court order does not correctly reflect the court’s decision as contained in its reasons”: DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226 at 263 [93] per Kirby J (with whom Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ agreed at 244 [34]). We would set aside Order 2 made on 10 May 2010, ex mero motu, and in lieu thereof order that:
The orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 22 December 2009 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that:
(a) The applicant's application be dismissed.
(b) The applicant pay the first respondent's costs.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Keane and Justices Emmett and Perram Associate:
Dated: 20 May 2010
- AGLC
- Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNVW (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 44
- Case
- [2010] FCAFC 44
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Full Federal Court was whether it had the power to set aside its own perfected orders to rectify discrepancies between those orders and the court's reasons. This issue hinged on the application of the "slip rule," which allows the court to correct orders that do not accurately reflect the court's reasoning. The Full Federal Court had to determine whether this rule applied to its own orders and whether it could therefore set aside its earlier decision.
In considering the matter, the Full Federal Court noted that it has inherent jurisdiction to correct its own orders when necessary to ensure they align with the court's reasons. The court concluded that the slip rule applied to its own orders, permitting it to rectify any discrepancies. Given the discrepancies between the court's earlier orders and its reasons, the Full Federal Court exercised its power under the slip rule to set aside its previous orders and issue new ones that accurately reflected the court's reasoning. Specifically, the orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court were set aside, and the applicant's application was dismissed with the applicant ordered to pay the Minister's costs.
The court's final orders were that the earlier order made by the Full Federal Court on 10 May 2010 be set aside and that, in lieu thereof, the orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 22 December 2009 be set aside, with the applicant's application dismissed and the applicant ordered to pay the Minister's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Order 2 made by this Court on 10 May 2010 be set aside.
2. In lieu thereof it be ordered that the orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 22 December 2009 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that:
(a) The applicant's application be dismissed.
(b) The applicant pay the first respondent's 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
Full text does not contain this section.