FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDLI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 532
MIGRATION – Application for extension of time to appeal – application dismissed.
SZDLI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 130 OF 2005
HILL J
18 APRIL 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 130 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZDLI
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
HILL
DATE OF ORDER:
18 APRIL 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed.
- The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
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 130 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZDLI
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
HILL
DATE:
18 APRIL 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore – revised)HILL J
This is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment given by a federal magistrate. The application was filed pursuant to order 52, rule 15(5) of the Federal Court Rules. As the applicant has not appeared, either at the time the matter was listed for hearing, or twenty minutes later, the application is dismissed and the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
I certify that the preceding numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hill. Associate:
Dated: 18 April 2005
For the Respondent:
There was no appearance by the applicant.
K Crawley
Date of Hearing: 18 April 2005 Date of Judgment: 18 April 2005
- AGLC
- SZDLI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 532
- Case
- [2005] FCA 532
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the court was whether the applicant had provided sufficient grounds for the extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal. The court needed to determine if the applicant's reasons for delay were exceptional and justified under the applicable legal principles. The court also had to consider whether the delay would cause any injustice to the respondent.
The court found that the applicant had not provided exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension of time. The applicant's reasons for delay were not deemed sufficient to justify the extension. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any significant prejudice that would result from the delay. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
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: HILL J
Full text does not contain this section.