FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZBQW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 957
NO ISSUE OF PRINCIPLE
SZBQW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 466 of 2004
BRANSON J
18 MAY 2004
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 466 of 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZBQW
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The notice of objection to competency be upheld.
2.The notice of appeal be dismissed as incompetent.
3.The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 466 of 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZBQW
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE:
18 MAY 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
At the time when this matter was listed for hearing the appellant was absent. He was also absent when the matter was called for hearing approximately ten minutes later. In my view the hearing should proceed.
I am satisfied that the notice of objection to competency in this matter should be upheld. The judgment of Federal Magistrate Driver of 22 March 2004 was plainly interlocutory. The appellant has not sought leave to appeal against that judgment. On the last occasion he was granted leave to make an application for leave on the basis that were he to file that application within the time given to him it would be treated as having been made on the date of his notice of appeal. However, that leave has not been exercised.
It was also indicated to him on the last occasion that the notice of objection to competency would be heard and determined today if he did not exercise the leave to seek leave to appeal against the order of Federal Magistrate Driver.
In the circumstances the notice of objection to competency is upheld and the notice of appeal dismissed as incompetent. There will be an order that the purported appellant pay the costs of the respondent.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson. Associate:
Dated: July 2004
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear Counsel for the Respondent: T Reilly Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 18 May 2004 Date of Judgment: 18 May 2004
- AGLC
- SZBQW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 957
- Case
- [2004] FCA 957
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Migration Act 1958, specifically in relation to the procedural requirements for lodging an appeal and the Minister's authority to object to competency. The court had to determine whether the Minister's objection was valid under the Act and if the appellant's appeal was properly before the court. The court also needed to consider whether the procedural fairness was observed in the handling of the appellant's appeal.
In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Minister's objection to competency was valid, as it was grounded in the provisions of the Act and supported by appropriate evidence. The court held that the appellant had failed to comply with the necessary procedural steps required to lodge a valid appeal, thereby rendering the appeal incompetent. Consequently, the notice of objection to competency was upheld, and the notice of appeal was dismissed. The court also ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the respondent, emphasising the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in such matters.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The notice of objection to competency be upheld.
2. The notice of appeal be dismissed as incompetent.
3. The appellant pay the costs of the 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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: BRANSON J
Full text does not contain this section.