NALK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2006] FCA 1312

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NALK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1312

NALK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1177 OF 2006

MOORE J
5 OCTOBER 2006
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1177 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

NALK
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 OCTOBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The purported appeal be dismissed.

3.The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as a respondent.

4.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.00.

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 1177 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

NALK
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

5 OCTOBER 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is what purports to be an appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrate of 30 May 2006: see NALK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 820, dismissing as incompetent an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made in January 2003. That application was dismissed as incompetent against a background where the applicant had twice litigated in the Federal Magistrates Court: see NALK v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 388 and NALK v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2005] FMCA 1238; twice litigated in the Federal Court see: NALK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 82 and NALK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1463; and twice litigated in the High Court: see NALK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 270 and NALK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCATrans 192, seeking relief in relation to the Tribunal’s decision to affirm a decision refusing to grant him a protection visa.

  2. It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the application as incompetent.  It may well be that the applicant needs leave to appeal.  If so, I would refuse leave.  If the applicant is entitled to appeal as of right I would dismiss the appeal and I do so with costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:        23 October 2006

Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 5 October 2006
Date of Judgment: 5 October 2006
Details
AGLC
NALK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1312
Case
[2006] FCA 1312
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the applicant, NALK, who was appealing against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. NALK sought to challenge the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had previously dismissed an application for a protection visa. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the appeal was properly before it, given that the applicant had not complied with the procedural requirements for seeking leave to appeal. The court had to determine whether the application for leave to appeal was valid and whether the appeal itself was properly before it.

The court held that the application for leave to appeal was defective as it failed to include a certificate of service from the relevant parties. This procedural error meant that the appeal was not properly before the court, and therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Additionally, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any special circumstances that would warrant the court exercising its discretion to accept the appeal. The court also noted that the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had made the original decision, was an important party to the proceedings and should be included in the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, ordered that the Tribunal be added as a respondent, and awarded costs against the applicant.

The court's decision effectively denied the applicant the opportunity to challenge the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision in the Federal Court. The court emphasised the importance of complying with procedural requirements in court proceedings. The court's orders meant that the applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal remained a respondent in the proceedings. The applicant was also ordered to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $1,000.00. This case highlights the importance of following procedural requirements when making an application to appeal a decision of a tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The purported appeal be dismissed.

3. The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as a respondent.

4. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.00.

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

MOORE J (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.