SZAMP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2006] FCA 1315


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAMP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1315

SZAMP AND SZAMQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1400 OF 2006

MOORE J
5 OCTOBER 2006
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1400 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZAMP
First Applicant

SZAMQ
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 OCTOBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The purported appeal be dismissed.

3.The applicants pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.00.

4.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as second respondent.

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 1400 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZAMP
First Applicant

SZAMQ
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

5 OCTOBER 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This purports to be an appeal against the judgment of Federal Magistrate Emmett of 7 July 2006 dismissing an application filed in that court on 24 November 2005, finding that it was an abuse of process: see SZAMP & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] FMCA 881. The applicants sought to review a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that occurred against a background where the delegate’s decision had been reviewed by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Tribunal’s decision had been challenged in multiple proceedings both in this Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the High Court: see NADO of 2002 & Orsv Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 797; NADO of 2002 & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 309; Applicant S506 of 2003v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 450; BZAG of 2004 & Orsv Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 302; BZAG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 392; and BZAG of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 922.

  2. It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in reaching the conclusion that the application was an abuse of process.  That decision is one in respect of which it is necessary to obtain leave to appeal.  I refuse leave with costs and I fix those costs in the sum of $1,000.

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:        23 October 2006

Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 5 October 2006
Date of Judgment: 5 October 2006
Details
AGLC
SZAMP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1315
Case
[2006] FCA 1315
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, SZAMP, challenged the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to cancel their visas and deport them from Australia. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicants sought leave to appeal against the tribunal’s decision. The Minister opposed the application for leave to appeal and argued that the application was frivolous or vexatious.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' appeal was frivolous or vexatious, thereby rendering it an abuse of process. The court had to consider the nature of the application and whether it had any reasonable prospect of success. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate costs order in light of the opposition to the application.

The court found that the applicants' appeal was indeed frivolous or vexatious. It concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success as it was based on arguments that had already been considered and rejected by the tribunal. The court noted that the applicants had not provided any new evidence or legal arguments to support their appeal. The court further held that the applicants' conduct in pursuing the appeal amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the purported appeal was also dismissed. The applicants were ordered to pay the Minister's costs, and the Refugee Review Tribunal was joined as the second respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The purported appeal be dismissed.

3. The applicants pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.00.

4. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as second respondent.

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.