FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDFB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2006] FCA 1087SZDFB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 799 OF 2006MADGWICK 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
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTREFUGEE 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
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE:
1 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR:
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- SZDFB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1087
- Case
- [2006] FCA 1087
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Minister had correctly exercised his discretion in cancelling the visa and whether the decision was based on relevant considerations. The court had to determine whether the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the Migration Act 1958 and whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice. The court also needed to assess whether the Minister had considered all relevant factors and whether the decision was unreasonable.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Minister had exercised his discretion correctly and that the decision was based on relevant considerations. The court held that the decision-making process complied with the Migration Act and the principles of natural justice. It was determined that the Minister had appropriately considered all relevant factors and that the decision was not unreasonable. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that costs of $4000 be paid by the appellant. This outcome affirmed the validity of the Minister's decision to cancel the visa and upheld the authority of the Minister to make such decisions under the Migration Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $4000.
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: MADGWICK J
Full text does not contain this section.