Shahin Dokht Modarreszadeh Esfahani Fard v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

SHAHIN DOKHT MODARRESZADEH ESFAHANI FARD
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
[2014] HCASL 85
M147/2013

The applicant, Ms Fard, contends that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection holds records containing false statements in so far as they state she is the mother of a man named Sohyle Lagheyefar or Sohail Laghaifar (or variants of these spellings). There is in Australia a man who has used these names, referred to by the trial judge (Gray J) as "Mr Quemers", and who claims to be the grandson of the Shah of Iran, deposed in 1925. Ms Fard denies having a son with this name, and Mr Quemers denies Ms Fard is his mother. Ms Fard claims she has suffered harm and persecution in Australia as the result of the false statements in the records.
Ms Fard commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against the Minister seeking various forms of relief. The relief sought was subsequently narrowed to two injunctions: the first prohibiting the Minister from holding records in which it is recorded that Sohyle Lagheyefar or Sohail Laghaifar is her son; and the second prohibiting the Minister from stating, demonstrating or in any way portraying that Sohyle Lagheyefar or Sohail Laghaifar is her son.
Justice Gray dismissed the application on the basis that Ms Fard had failed to establish any legal basis for the relief she sought. Further, his Honour found that she had failed to prove the facts on which she sought to rely at trial.
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Marshall, Tracey and Murphy JJ) dismissed the appeal, finding no error on the part of Gray J.
Ms Fard seeks leave to appeal from the decision of the Full Federal Court. As Ms Fard does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Ms Fard's submissions fail to identify any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Federal Court. An appeal to this Court would have no prospects of success. The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
13 May 2014 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Shahin Dokht Modarreszadeh Esfahani Fard, an Australian resident, sought relief from the Federal Court of Australia against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, claiming that records held by the Minister contained false information that she is the mother of a man named Sohyle Lagheyefar or Sohail Laghaifar. She argued that this information had caused her harm and persecution. The relief sought was ultimately narrowed to two injunctions aimed at preventing the Minister from holding or portraying this information as fact. Justice Gray dismissed the application, finding that Ms Fard had not established a legal basis for the relief sought and had failed to prove the facts necessary for her claims. The Full Court of the Federal Court upheld the decision, and Ms Fard now seeks leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the High Court involved whether Ms Fard had demonstrated any error in the Full Federal Court's decision and whether there were any grounds to doubt the correctness of the lower court's findings. Ms Fard's submissions did not identify any such errors or reasons for doubt. The High Court considered whether an appeal to the Court would have any prospects of success. In this instance, the Court determined that an appeal would not be successful due to the lack of identified errors or grounds for doubt in the lower court's decision. The Court dismissed Ms Fard's application for leave to appeal and directed the Registrar to prepare the necessary order.

This decision underscores the rigorous standard required for appeals to the High Court of Australia. The Court's dismissal of Ms Fard's application highlights the necessity for appellants to clearly demonstrate the grounds on which their appeal should be considered, especially when proceeding without legal representation. The outcome reinforces the importance of establishing both legal and factual bases for claims when seeking relief in the courts.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established