SZDMG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1260

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDMG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1260

SZDMG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1725 OF 2004

EMMETT J
30 AUGUST 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1725 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	SZDMG APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 AUGUST 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The notice of motion filed on 9 August 2005 be dismissed. 

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.

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	NSD1725 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	SZDMG APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	30 AUGUST 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh, who arrived in Australia on 14 February 1998.  On 13 March 1998, he lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On 24 March 1998, a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’), refused to grant a protection visa. On 20 April 1998, the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) for a review of that decision. On 24 March 2000, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant was notified of that decision on 11 April 2000.

2. On 6 May 2004, the applicant commenced a proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.  On 3 November 2004, Smith FM upheld an objection to competency, having regard to the lapse of time between the notification of the decision of the Tribunal and the commencement of the proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court.  His Honour ordered that the application be dismissed, and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister’s costs in the sum of $4,000.  In order to determine that the application was incompetent, his Honour examined in some detail the reasons of the Tribunal and concluded that there was no jurisdictional error. 

3. By notice of appeal filed on 23 November 2004, the appellant appealed from the orders of Smith FM.  The appeal was listed for directions before me on 17 December 2004.  On that occasion, there was no appearance for the appellant and, for the reasons that I gave on 17 December 2004, I dismissed the appeal.

4. By notice of motion filed on 9 August 2004, the appellant applied for orders that the orders of 17 December 2004 be set aside and that the appellant be allowed to present an argument before the Court.  That motion was fixed for hearing today.  When the matter was called on for hearing, there was no appearance for the appellant.  The Minister, therefore, asks that the motion be dismissed.  I propose to accede to that application.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:             8 September 2005

No appearance for the appellant
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitors
Date of Hearing:	30 August 2005
Date of Judgment:	30 August 2005