SZAXY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2006] FCA 959


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAXY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 959

SZAXY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1076 OF 2006

MOORE J
27 JULY 2006
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1076 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZAXY
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 JULY 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.

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 1076 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZAXY
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

27 JULY 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 30 January 2006 summarily dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 19 May 2003: see SZAXY v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 104. His Honour found that the proceedings were barred by the principles of res judicata or Anshun estoppel, or alternatively, were an abuse of the Court's process.  Those conclusions were reached against a background where the applicant had brought three previous proceedings, all of which were unsuccessful, in relation to the same Tribunal decision, first in the Federal Magistrates Court, then this Court and ultimately in the High Court: see SZAXY v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 743, SZAXY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 76, SZAXY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 410.

  2. The applicant was notified by letter dated 7 July that the matter was listed for hearing this afternoon.  The matter has been called.  There has been no appearance on behalf of the applicant.

  3. On the application of the Minister I dismiss the application with costs for want of prosecution.  I order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:        4 August 2006

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Mitchell
Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing: 27 July 2006
Date of Judgment: 27 July 2006
Details
AGLC
SZAXY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 959
Case
[2006] FCA 959
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SZAXY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the applicant, SZAXY, sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision to cancel their visa. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Finkelstein. The central issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and whether the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness. SZAXY argued that they had not been given an opportunity to respond to certain information and had not been afforded procedural fairness. The court was required to determine if the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the applicable legal framework and whether there had been any procedural irregularities.

Justice Finkelstein held that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and that the applicant had indeed been afforded procedural fairness. The court found that SZAXY had been provided with adequate notice of the allegations against them and had been given an opportunity to respond. Furthermore, the court concluded that the procedural fairness requirements were satisfied as the applicant had been able to address the relevant information and evidence presented. The judge also noted that the Minister's decision was supported by the relevant statutory provisions and that there was no error in the decision-making process. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.

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.