NBGO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

The applicants, NBGO, sought leave to appeal from a decision made by Raphael FM on 17 September 2007. The Federal Magistrates Court had granted an application by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to summarily dismiss an application filed by the applicants on 22 August 2007. The applicants had previously sought review of a decision made by the Tribunal on 5 April 2004, which had affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse them a protection visa. The applicants had already taken steps to seek review of the Tribunal's decision, including an application in the Federal Court, an appeal to the Federal Court, and an application for special leave to the High Court. The applicants argued that they would suffer problems if they returned to India and that they did not receive justice in relation to the Tribunal hearing or the series of hearings before the three Federal Courts.

The legal issues before the court were whether the judgment of Raphael FM was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered, and whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were to be refused. The court noted that the applicants' claims for review of the decision of the Tribunal and their grounds for such claims had already been the subject of earlier decisions by the Federal Court and were res judicata. The court also noted that an attempt to re-litigate matters already determined is an abuse of process and should not be entertained by the Court. The court found that the applicants' claims were patently an abuse of process and that there was sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration of the judgment. However, the court also found that substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were to be granted, as the applicants had already had their claims determined by the Federal Court and the High Court.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the judgment of Raphael FM was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered. However, the court also found that substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were to be granted, as the applicants had already had their claims determined by the Federal Court and the High Court. The court noted that the applicants' claims were patently an abuse of process and that it would be scandalous to the administration of justice if the same question were to be permitted to be set up again. The court also noted that the appropriate order with respect to the claim of the first applicant was that the application be dismissed.

In summary, the applicants sought leave to appeal from a decision made by the Federal Magistrates Court, which had granted an application by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to summarily dismiss an application filed by the applicants. The court found that the judgment of Raphael FM was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered, but also found that substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were to be granted. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the applicants' claims were patently an abuse of process.