FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZBFL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 607
SZBFL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 439 of 2005ALLSOP J
12 MAY 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 439 of 2005
ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF A FEDERAL MAGISTRATE
BETWEEN:
SZBFL
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- On or before 17 June 2005 the appellant file and serve:
- an amended notice of appeal with adequate particulars setting out the grounds of appeal; and
b. full written submissions in support of the appeal including but not limited to any submissions as to whether one Judge or three Judges should hear the appeal.
- Subject to order 3, the matter stand over to Friday, 24 June 2005 at 2.15pm for directions.
- If order 1 is not complied with, the Court will hear the appellant at 2.15pm on 24 June 2005 as to why the Court should not dismiss the appeal under s 25 (2B) (bb) (i) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for failure to comply with the a direction of the Court.
- The costs of today be reserved.
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 439 of 2005
ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF A FEDERAL MAGISTRATE
BETWEEN:
SZBFL
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE:
12 MAY 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter was listed on 28 April 2005, the appellant rang my chambers and spoke to my associate shortly prior to then, advised who he was and that he had an injury which would prevent him coming to Court. There was a question of a telephone link. I indicated I would not have a telephone link but I would adjourn the matter for two weeks. The matter is in the list today at 9.00 am for directions, there was no appearance by the appellant, the matter was called three times outside by the necessary acronym by reason of s 91X of the Migration Act1958 (Cth).
The notice of appeal has not a scintilla of assistance as to what the error of the learned Federal Magistrate was. This is a notice of appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court. The grounds of appeal are entirely uninformative.
I propose to make the following orders:
1. On or before 17 June 2005 the appellant file and serve:
a. an amended notice of appeal with adequate particulars setting out the grounds of appeal; and
b. full written submissions in support of the appeal including but not limited to any submissions as to whether one Judge or three Judges should hear the appeal.
2. Subject to order 3, the matter stand over to Friday, 24 June 2005 at 2.15pm for directions.
3. If order 1 is not complied with, the Court will hear the appellant at 2.15pm on 24 June 2005 as to why the Court should not dismiss the appeal under s 25 (2B) (bb) (i) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for failure to comply with the a direction of the Court.
4. The costs of today be reserved.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop. Associate:
Dated: 19 May 2005
The appellant appeared in person after the matter was called and heard. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Carter (Slr) Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 12 May 2005 Date of Judgment: 12 May 2005
- AGLC
- SZBFL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 607
- Case
- [2005] FCA 607
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the appeal was prematurely filed due to the appellant's failure to adequately specify the grounds of appeal and provide full written submissions. It was determined that the appellant needed to amend the notice of appeal and furnish comprehensive submissions before the appeal could proceed. The court emphasised the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements and highlighted the need for the appellant to articulate the grounds of appeal with particularity and to provide a full exposition of their case in writing. The court's decision underscored the necessity for clear and concise legal arguments to ensure that the appeal could be effectively heard and determined.
The court ordered the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal and written submissions by a specified date, failing which the appeal would be at risk of dismissal. The matter was subsequently adjourned to allow the court to provide further directions. The costs of the hearing were reserved pending the outcome of the appellant's compliance with the orders. This ruling reinforced the importance of procedural diligence in judicial review proceedings and set a clear path for the appellant to follow in order to pursue their appeal effectively.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. On or before 17 June 2005 the appellant file and serve:
1. an amended notice of appeal with adequate particulars setting out the grounds of appeal; and
b. full written submissions in support of the appeal including but not limited to any submissions as to whether one Judge or three Judges should hear the appeal.
2. Subject to order 3, the matter stand over to Friday, 24 June 2005 at 2.15pm for directions.
3. If order 1 is not complied with, the Court will hear the appellant at 2.15pm on 24 June 2005 as to why the Court should not dismiss the appeal under s 25 (2B) (bb) (i) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for failure to comply with the a direction of the Court.
4. The costs of today be reserved.
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
Established by: ALLSOP J
Full text does not contain this section.