SBFF v Minister for Immigration

Case

[2006] FMCA 1462

26 September 2006


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SBFF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1462
MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision − where application previously subject of review in appellate courts − whether court prevented from hearing the application on the grounds of res judicata − whether application is an abuse of process.
Applicant: SBFF
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File Number: ADG204 of 2006
Judgment of: Raphael FM
Hearing date: 26 September 2006
Date of Last Submission: 26 September 2006
Delivered at: Adelaide
Delivered on: 26 September 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in Person
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr K. Treddea
Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

  1. Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13.10(c) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

  2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $2000 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

  3. No further application by the applicant to review the proceedings of the Refugee Review Tribunal, handed down on 20 October 2004, or the Delegate of the Minister, handed down on 2 April 2004, be made without leave of a Federal Magistrate.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
ADELAIDE

ADG204 of 2006

SBFF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. These proceedings were filed by the applicant, apparently a resident of New South Wales, in Adelaide on 19 July 2006.  They seek review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal that was made on 20 October 2004.  That decision has already been the subject of proceedings before the Federal Magistrates Court, where it was considered by Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones on 8 December 2005 and a decision was given on 27 January 2006.

  2. The respondent was not satisfied with the decision of the Federal Magistrate and appealed to the Federal Court.  On 12 May 2006, Edmonds J dismissed the appeal.  The applicant had applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court.  This had become out of time.  It was apparently reinstated.  The applicant tells me today that it has been dismissed.

  3. The proceedings before me seek to re-agitate matters that have already been decided and are therefore prevented from being heard by virtue of the doctrine of res judicata.  Not only that, if the applicant had any right whatsoever to bring these proceedings, they would have had to be brought within the time limits laid down by the Migration Act 1958


    In short, those time limits, when extended so far as possible, require an application to the court in respect of a decision made before


    1 December 2005 as this one was, to be made the subject of an application for review by mid-February 2006.  The court is not permitted to entertain any application filed later than that. 


    This application was filed in July 2006.  I would also remark that the re-agitating of an application that has already been thoroughly considered by three courts amounts, in my view, to an abuse of process. 

  4. For that reason I propose to dismiss these proceedings. Firstly, on the basis that I do not have jurisdiction to hear them, secondly, in the event that it is found that I have jurisdiction to hear them, the claim for relief is an abuse of the process of the Court under Rule 13.10(c) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. The applicant is required to pay the respondent's costs, which I assess in the sum of $2000.

  5. I order that no further application by the applicant to review the proceedings of the Refugee Review Tribunal, handed down on


    20 October 2004, or the delegate of the Minister, handed down on


    2 April 2004, be made without leave of a Federal Magistrate.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM.

Associate: 

Date: 

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0