S364 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 444

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S364 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 444

MIGRATION – Notice of Objection to Competency – where the application was filed 85 days after notification of decision.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.477, 477(2)(a), 477(3)

Applicant: APPLICANT S364 OF 2003

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

REFGUEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 611 of 2006

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 17 March 2006

Date of Last Submission: 17 March 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 17 March 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in Person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. Substantive application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the respondents’ costs assessed in the sum of $750.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 611 of 2006

APPLICANT S364 OF 2003

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the applicant made an application to this court on

   
   

   24 February 2006 seeking review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal in 1994.  It was not the first time that the applicant had made an application to review this decision.  She would appear to have joined a class action and had her proceedings thereunder dismissed.  This application, being dated after the commencement on

   
   

   1 December 2005 of s.477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), meant that the applicant was required to file any initiating proceedings in this court in relation to that Tribunal decision within 28 days of

   
   

   1 December 2005. She filed the proceedings on 24 February 2006, which was 85 days after the actual notification the decision. The provisions of s.477(2)(a) allow the court to grant an extension of time so long as an application therefore is made within 56 days. In other words, a prospective applicant has 84 days altogether, at a maximum, in which to file proceedings, but she would be required, in relation to a late filing also to seek the indulgence of the court.

2. This applicant did not do that. Therefore, by virtue of s.477(3) of the Act I am not allowed to make an order which has the effect of allowing an applicant to make an application outside the 28 day period. The applicant in this case says she was unaware of the law. I am sure that is correct. Unfortunately I am unable to assist her. The application, being the principal application commenced on 24 February 2006, is dismissed. The applicant must pay the respondent's costs which I assess in the sum of $750.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Associate:

Date:  31 March 2006