SQLB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1151

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SQLB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 1151

SQLB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SAD 244 of 2004

MANSFIELD J
1 AUGUST 2005
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD 244 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	SQLB APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 AUGUST 2005
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay to the respondent her costs of the application to be taxed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD 244 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	SQLB APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	1 AUGUST 2005
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal and for leave to appeal from a decision of the Court given on 17 October 2003.  On that date the Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 7 March 2000.  It did so in circumstances where the applicant had failed to comply with directions of the Court and had not presented any material to the Court to indicate any prospect of success on the application.

2. The present application is supported by an affidavit and by a draft notice of appeal.  Neither of those documents provides information which indicates, that if the application was successful so that an appeal were instituted, the appeal itself would have any prospect of success.  Neither of those documents indicates any way in which the decision of the Tribunal was made through jurisdictional error on its part.  Nor do those documents indicate the reasons why the applicant failed to comply with the directions of the Court, leading to the dismissal of the proceedings on 17 October 2003.

3. Counsel appearing for the applicant has frankly acknowledged the inadequacies of those documents and has indicated that she is not instructed to adduce further material, nor to seek a further adjournment of the application, or to make further submissions.

4. I record that the file discloses that the application presently before the Court was originally listed for hearing on 7 March 2005.  It was subsequently adjourned to enable the file of the solicitors for the applicant on the record at the time of the judgment of 17 October 2003 to be procured.  Apparently it might have been suggested that the responsibility for the applicant not complying with the orders of the Court may have laid with the former solicitor.  That subpoena was duly answered on 30 March 2005.  The material then produced made available to the applicant for inspection.  Nothing has been adduced to the Court subsequent to that process.

5. In those circumstances, in my view, the application must fail simply because there is nothing before the Court which would indicate that, if it were successful, the applicant would have any prospect of success on the proposed appeal.  There are no grounds upon which the Court can properly exercise its discretion in favour of the application under O 52 r 15.  I dismiss the application with costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Mansfield.

Associate:

Dated:             22 August 2005

Counsel for the Applicant:	A MacDonald
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Refugee Advocacy Service of South Australia
Counsel for the Respondent:	K Tredrea
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	1 August 2005
Date of Judgment:	1 August 2005