SZAKL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 886

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAKL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 886

SZAKL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 779 OF 2007

MOORE J
8 JUNE 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 779 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZAKL
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE  J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 JUNE 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $800.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 779 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZAKL
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE  J

DATE:

8 JUNE 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 16 April 2007 dismissing as an abuse of process an application for judicial review (see: SZAKL v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 622). The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 13 February 2007 in which the Tribunal indicated it did not have jurisdiction to entertain another application for review of a decision of the delegate of the Minister refusing the applicant a protection visa.

  2. The conclusion of the Federal Magistrate appears to me to be correct and there are no prospects of the applicant succeeding in any appeal if leave were given.  Accordingly I dismiss the application for leave to appeal and order the applicant to pay the Minister’s costs.  I note that this application for leave to appeal is made against an extensive background of litigation both in this Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the High Court (see: SZAKL v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 170; SZAKL v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1257; SZAKL v Minister for Immigration [2005] HCATrans 495; SZAKL v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1965; SZAKL v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 567; SZAKL v Minister for Immigration [2006] HCATrans 651).

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:        26 June 2007

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing: 8 June 2007
Date of Judgment: 8 June 2007
Details
AGLC
SZAKL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 886
Case
[2007] FCA 886
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, SZAKL, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The dispute revolved around the Minister's refusal to grant the applicant a visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant argued that the Minister had acted irrationally and unjustifiably by not considering certain evidence, and had thereby breached the common law principle of procedural fairness.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister owed a duty of procedural fairness to the applicant, and if so, whether this duty had been breached. The court was required to determine if the Minister's failure to consider certain evidence amounted to a breach of natural justice, and if the Minister's decision was irrational or otherwise legally flawed.

The court found that the Minister did owe a duty of procedural fairness to the applicant. However, the court held that the Minister's failure to consider the additional evidence did not amount to a breach of natural justice, as the Minister had been provided with sufficient information to make the decision. The court also concluded that the Minister's decision was not irrational, and was therefore valid. As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the Minister's costs, fixed in the sum of $800.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $800.

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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.