Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd - [2014] FCA 908

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZTGS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 908

Citation: SZTGS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 908

Appeal from: SZTGS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCCA 468

Parties: SZTGS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: NSD 230 of 2014

Judge: LOGAN J

Date of judgment: 22 August 2014

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – appeal by leave from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court summarily to dismiss a judicial review application – whether that court erred in failing to conclude that the Refugee Review Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by a failure to give a written statement of reasons in accordance with the requirements of s 430 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Held: Reasons furnished by the Tribunal did not comply with the requirements of s 430 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Federal Circuit Court erred in dismissing the judicial review application – matter remitted to the Tribunal for determination according to law

Legislation: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N, 55ZF
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 36, 425, 426A, 430, 486I
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 4.12
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 44.12(1)(a)

Cases cited: Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110 cited
Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 cited
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS (2013) 136 ALD 547 considered
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 considered
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZLSP (2010) 187 FCR 362 followed
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1986) 185 CLR 259 considered
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 cited
NAKD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 321 considered
SZTGS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 551 cited
SZTGS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 676 cited
VCAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 141 considered

Date of hearing: 20 August 2014

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 43

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms L Andelman (Pro Bono)

Solicitor for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 230 of 2014

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
SZTGS
Appellant

AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

LOGAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 AUGUST 2014

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is allowed.
2.The orders made by the Federal Circuit Court on 19 February 2014 are set aside.
3.In lieu thereof, it is ordered that:
(1)An order in the nature of certiorari issue quashing the decision of the Second Respondent dated 16 August 2013, which affirmed a decision not to grant the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] FCA 908
Decision Date: 22 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the Federal Circuit Court had erred in dismissing a judicial review application concerning a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The central issue in this case was whether the Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error by not providing a written statement of reasons as required by section 430 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This omission was the crux of the appeal by the applicant, Murrihy, who was seeking a review of a decision to deny him a Protection (Class XA) visa.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the statutory requirement for the Refugee Review Tribunal to provide written reasons for its decisions under section 430 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the reasons given by the Tribunal were sufficient and in compliance with the legislative mandate. The applicant argued that the reasons provided were inadequate and that the Federal Circuit Court should have recognised this error and allowed the judicial review application. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the reasons supplied were adequate and that the Federal Circuit Court's decision to dismiss the application was correct.

The Federal Court found that the reasons provided by the Refugee Review Tribunal did not meet the statutory requirements set out in section 430 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court held that the Federal Circuit Court had erred in dismissing the judicial review application without addressing the jurisdictional issue of the adequacy of the reasons. Consequently, the Federal Court set aside the orders of the Federal Circuit Court and remitted the matter back to the Refugee Review Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The Federal Court's decision highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory obligations regarding the provision of reasons for administrative decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The orders made by the Federal Circuit Court on 19 February 2014 are set aside.

3. In lieu thereof, it is ordered that:

(1) An order in the nature of certiorari issue quashing the decision of the Second Respondent dated 16 August 2013, which affirmed a decision not to grant the Appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa.

(2) An order in the nature of mandamus issue remitting the Appellant’s application for review to the Second Respondent for determination according to law.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.

Citation:	SZTGS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 908
Appeal from:	SZTGS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCCA 468
Parties:	SZTGS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number:	NSD 230 of 2014
Judge:	LOGAN J
Date of judgment:	22 August 2014
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – appeal by leave from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court summarily to dismiss a judicial review application – whether that court erred in failing to conclude that the Refugee Review Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by a failure to give a written statement of reasons in accordance with the requirements of s 430 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Held: Reasons furnished by the Tribunal did not comply with the requirements of s 430 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Federal Circuit Court erred in dismissing the judicial review application – matter remitted to the Tribunal for determination according to law
Legislation:	Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N, 55ZF Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 36, 425, 426A, 430, 486I Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 4.12 Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 44.12(1)(a)
Cases cited:	Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110 cited Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 cited Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS (2013) 136 ALD 547 considered Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 considered Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZLSP (2010) 187 FCR 362 followed Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1986) 185 CLR 259 considered Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 cited NAKD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 321 considered SZTGS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 551 cited SZTGS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 676 cited VCAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 141 considered
Date of hearing:	20 August 2014
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	43
Counsel for the Appellant:	Ms L Andelman (Pro Bono)
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Sparke Helmore

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 230 of 2014

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 AUGUST 2014
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY