SZDLQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2006] FCA 1277

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDLQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1277

SZDLQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS and ANOR
NSD 543 OF 2006

BLACK CJ
1 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 543 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZDLQ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL  AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BLACK CJ

DATE OF ORDER:

1 AUGUST 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.  The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.  The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $1200.00.

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 543 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZDLQ 
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL  AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

 BLACK CJ

DATE OF ORDER:

1 AUGUST 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Nicholls FM dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal on the ground that the application was an abuse of process.

  2. As the decision of Nicholls FM was interlocutory in nature, the applicant needs leave to appeal to this Court.

  3. The applicant has challenged the Tribunal’s decision on a previous occasion in the Federal Magistrates Court and in this Court, and unsuccessfully sought special leave to appeal to the High Court. The history of those proceedings is outlined the reasons of Nicholls FM at [4].

  4. The refusal of leave to appeal to the High Court should have been the end of the matter but the applicant started all over again to challenge the same decision, apparently on the advice of some person.  In those circumstances, the Federal Magistrate was quite correct in finding that the second attempt to challenge the Tribunal’s decision was simply not permissible and was an abuse of process of the Court.

  5. The applicant has not raised any matters of substance that point to an error on the part of Nicholls FM, in either his written submissions or in oral submissions at this hearing.  I therefore have no option but to dismiss the application.  I note that the documents filed by the applicant use language which I do not believe could possibly be his own.  Some person is trying to assist the applicant but is in fact causing him more pain.

  6. The applicant, and those advising him, do not seem to understand that a losing party must generally pay the other party’s costs unless there is a good reason for the Court to order otherwise.  There is no reason why the ordinary rule should not apply here.  

  7. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs fixed in the sum of $1200.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black. 

Associate:

Dated: 26 September 2006    

The Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent: D Watson
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 1 August 2006
Date of Judgment: 1 August 2006
Details
AGLC
SZDLQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1277
Case
[2006] FCA 1277
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZDLQ versus the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. SZDLQ, an individual who had been refused a visa and subsequently sought to challenge the decision, was the applicant, while the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was the respondent. The dispute centred on the refusal of a visa application by the applicant, and the subsequent denial of a review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues the court was tasked with deciding related to the applicant's contention that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions and the application of its own procedural rules. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to properly consider certain evidence and had misapplied the law in reaching its decision. The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and whether there were any grounds upon which the Tribunal's decision could be quashed.

The court, in its reasoning, examined the application of the Migration Act and the principles of administrative law that govern the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The court found that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the relevant legislative provisions and had properly applied the evidence before it. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was not tainted by any error of law and that there were no grounds for the court to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, fixed at $1200.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $1200.00.

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

BLACK CJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BLACK CJ

Full text does not contain this section.