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 65Cases 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
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE 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
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE:
8 FEBRUARY 2011
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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).
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.
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] FCA 92
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.