SZDFB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1087

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDFB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2006] FCA 1087

SZDFB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 799 OF 2006

MADGWICK J
1 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 799 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDFB
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $4000.

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 799 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDFB
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	1 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision adverse to the appellant, made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) as long ago as 29 August 1997.  Notwithstanding that the appellant waited nearly seven years before approaching the court below to seek judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision, her Honour addressed each of the grounds raised by the appellant in his application, as well as various matters raised in a document provided to the court after the hearing. 

2. The notice of appeal filed in this Court, insofar as it raises any legal matters at all, descends to no particulars.  No particular jurisdictional error is alleged, nor can I see any evidence of one; nor, on its face, does the decision in the court below in any way look erroneous.  It is for the appellant to make out his case.  His submissions went no distance towards doing that and it is inevitable that his appeal be dismissed with costs. 

3. Costs are assessed in the sum of $4000.

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

Associate:

Dated:       17 August 2006

Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	1 August 2006
Date of Judgment:	1 August 2006