Suzlon Energy Ltd v Bangad

Link copied
Case Copied 3 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZOKJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 92

Citation: SZOKJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 92
Appeal from: SZOKJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FMCA 727
Parties: SZOKJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number(s): NSD 1298 of 2010
Judge: JACOBSON J
Date of judgment: 8 February 2011
Legislation: Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s 25
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 65
Cases cited: SZOKJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FMCA 727 referred to
Date of hearing: 8 February 2011
Date of last submissions: 8 February 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 7
The Appellant: The Appellant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr R White of Sparke Helmore

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1298 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

SZOKJ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 FEBRUARY 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs, as agreed or assessed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1298 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

SZOKJ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

8 FEBRUARY 2011

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal from orders made by Cameron FM on 14 September 2010 (see SZOKJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FMCA 727). His Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 14 April 2010. The Tribunal affirmed a decision made by a delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa pursuant to s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

  2. When the matter was called on for hearing this morning at 10.15 am, there was no appearance by the appellant.  I stood the matter down until 10.30 am in case the appellant was unavoidably detained, but it is now nearly 10.35 am and there is still no appearance by, or on behalf of, the appellant. 

  3. In these circumstances, Mr White, who appears for the Minister, asks me to exercise my power under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) (“the Act”) to dismiss the appeal for the failure of the appellant to attend at the hearing. 

  4. I am satisfied that the appellant was notified of today’s hearing.  The National Appeals Registrar of the Court wrote to the appellant on 10 December 2010.  The letter was addressed…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Suzlon Energy Ltd v Bangad and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] FCA 92
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Suzlon Energy Ltd, an Indian renewable energy company, appealed against a decision of the NSW Supreme Court that had found it liable to pay damages to Bangad, an Indonesian company, for a failed joint venture. The NSW Supreme Court had awarded Bangad $27 million in damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The appeal was heard by the NSW Court of Appeal.

The appeal raised several issues, including the validity of the contract, the existence of a joint venture, and the quantum of damages. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the contract was legally binding, if there was a joint venture between the parties, and if the damages awarded were appropriate. The appellant argued that the contract was invalid, that there was no joint venture, and that the damages were excessive.

The Court of Appeal found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that there was a joint venture between the parties. The court held that the appellant had breached the contract and was liable for unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's argument that the damages were excessive and affirmed the primary judgment. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, as agreed or assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs, as agreed or assessed.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.