SZDPO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2006] FCA 566

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDPO & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 566

SZDPO & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ANOR
NSD 2642 OF 2005

BLACK CJ
5 MAY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2642 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZDPO
FIRST APPLICANT

SZDPP
SECOND APPLICANT

SZDPQ
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BLACK CJ

DATE OF ORDER:

5 MAY 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 $1000.00.

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 2642 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZDPO
FIRST APPLICANT

SZDPP
SECOND APPLICANT

SZDPQ
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BLACK CJ
DATE:	5 MAY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate dismissing as an abuse of process an application by the applicants challenging a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.

2. The applicants arrived in Australia in November 2003 and applied unsuccessfully for protection visas.  They sought a review of these decisions by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal is the body established under our law to review claims for refugee status.  The decision of the Tribunal to affirm the original decision was challenged unsuccessfully in proceedings before the Federal Magistrates Court.  There was then an appeal to the Federal Court, which was dismissed by Stone J on 28 June 2005. 

3. The applicants then sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.  That application was dismissed on 20 October 2005.  A few days later the applicants filed an application in the Federal Magistrates Court to challenge the decision of the Tribunal which they had already unsuccessfully challenged all the way to the High Court.

4. In those circumstances, the Federal Magistrate had virtually no option but to dismiss the matter as an abuse of process of the court.  Nevertheless he looked into the matter with care before concluding that the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process. 

5. The documents filed by the applicant in the present proceeding merely seek to re-agitate matters that were or might have been raised in the earlier proceedings.  In these circumstances no ground has been shown for leave to appeal being granted from the Magistrate's decision.  The application must therefore be dismissed.

6. The application is dismissed and the applicant must pay the costs, which I fix in the sum of $1000.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black.

Associate:

Dated:            15 May 2006

The Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	S Zarucki
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	5 May 2006
Date of Judgment:	5 May 2006