SZCRP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1267

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCRP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 1267

SZCRP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1101 of 2005

WILCOX J
1 SEPTEMBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1101 of 2005

BETWEEN:	SZCRP APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 SEPTEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

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 1101 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZCRP APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	1 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against an order made in the Federal Magistrates Court on 20 June 2005.  The magistrate summarily dismissed the applicant's application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal that had been made on 15 December 2003.  The matter had come before the magistrate on 23 May 2005 upon the application of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’).

2. The Minister's application was for summary dismissal, upon the basis that the applicant had failed to particularise the grounds upon which he relied in challenging the Tribunal's decision.  The magistrate agreed that the grounds were insufficiently particularised and directed that the applicant file and serve a statement of particulars setting out the facts and circumstances supporting four grounds remaining after deletion of one ground, which was said to be entirely hopeless.  This had to be done no later than 6 June 2005.  The magistrate said:

   ‘In default of compliance with the order for particulars in relation to each of the four grounds that remain I give the Minister liberty to apply for an order in chambers striking out any unparticularised ground without further reference to the applicant.’

3. The applicant was present in Court at that time and thus was aware of the necessity to comply with the magistrate's order.  However, he did not file any statement of particulars.  The Minister then applied to the Court, pursuant to the leave reserved by the magistrate and the magistrate made an order summarily dismissing the proceeding.

4. When the matter came before me today, I asked the applicant for particulars of his grounds for challenging the Tribunal's decision.  The application for leave to appeal, and draft notice of appeal, that have been filed in this Court are uninformative. 

5. The applicant said he would need to obtain legal advice in order to inform the Court as to his grounds.  He said he would do that if he had more time.  However, the applicant has had 21 months, since the Tribunal's decision, in order to obtain legal advice.  It is now some three and a half months since the matter was first before the magistrate.  If the applicant had taken this application seriously, and wished to co-operate with the Court, he would have obtained advice long before now. 

6. I have no material before me that would justify my concluding that the magistrate's decision was even arguably wrong.  The application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:            22 September 2005

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	1 September 2005
Date of Judgment:	1 September 2005