NBBL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1616

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NBBL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1616

MIGRATION – purported appeal from decision of single judge exercising Court's appellate jurisdiction – jurisdiction to dismiss as incompetent

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1AAA)

BZAC v Refugee Review Tribunal (2005) FCA 675 applied
Khatri v Price (1999) 95 FCR 287 applied

NBBL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1654 OF 2006

MOORE  J
23 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1654 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

NBBL
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE  J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The purported appeal be dismissed as incompetent.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $700.

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 1654 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

NBBL
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE  J
DATE:	23 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 29 August 2006 the applicant filed what purported to be a notice of appeal against a judgment of Greenwood J of 11 August 2006: see NBBL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1045. His Honour refused leave to file an amended notice of appeal and dismissed the appeal with costs. The appellant had sought to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 8 February 2006 dismissing a challenge to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.

2. Greenwood J was exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. There is no jurisdiction in this Court to entertain a purported appeal in the Court's appellate jurisdiction from a judgment of the type given by Greenwood J: see s 24(1AAA) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Accordingly, the process filed on 29 August 2006 does not engage the Court's appellate jurisdiction and does not otherwise engage the Court's jurisdiction save to the extent that I have jurisdiction to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction. So much was established by Khatri v Price (1999) 95 FCR 287. I have jurisdiction to exercise the power to make an order under s 23 of the Act dismissing the process filed on 29 August 2006 as incompetent. A similar conclusion was reached by Spender J in BZAC v Refugee Review Tribunal (2005) FCA 675 which was referred to with approval by Conti J in a Full Court in Applicants 325/2002v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCAFC 59.

3. The purported notice of appeal filed 29 August 2006 should be dismissed as incompetent.  The appellant should pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $700.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore .

Associate:

Dated:        8 December 2006

The Appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	23 November 2006
Date of Judgment:	23 November 2006