SZDSU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2005] FCA 794

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDSU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 794

SZDSU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 455 OF 2005

MOORE J
9 JUNE 2005
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 455 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDSU
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 JUNE 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent's costs.

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 455 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDSU
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

9 JUNE 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 3 March 2005.  The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 29 March 1999.  On 7 April 2005, the matter was fixed for hearing today.  On that day the appellant appeared in person and was assisted by a friend Mr Leovski.  The appellant was plainly aware that the matter was listed for hearing today.

  2. I have been informed by the solicitor appearing for the Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") that there have been communications between the appellant and her firm to the effect that the appellant did not wish to continue with the appeal and would consent to the appeal being dismissed with costs. 

  3. Whilst attempts have been made to secure orders reflecting this agreement they have not yet been furnished to the solicitors for the Minister.

  4. In those circumstances and in the absence of clear evidence that the appellant consents to this course, the preferable course is to dismiss the appeal for non appearance, which I have been invited to do. 

  5. I propose to order that the appeal be dismissed and secondly the appellant pay the respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:            22 June 2005

The Appellant did not appear
Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 9 June 2005
Date of Judgment: 9 June 2005
Details
AGLC
SZDSU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 794
Case
[2005] FCA 794
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SZDSU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the court was called upon to consider the legal status of a person who had been detained under Australian immigration laws. The appellant, represented by the SZDSU, challenged the legality of their detention and sought relief from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The matter was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the extent to which the detention of the appellant complied with the requirements of natural justice. The court needed to determine whether the Minister's decision to detain the appellant was lawful, and if the procedural fairness was adequately observed during the decision-making process.

The court found that the provisions of the Migration Act provided the Minister with the authority to detain individuals under specific circumstances. The court also held that the procedures followed in this case were in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as the appellant had been given an opportunity to be heard and to present their case before the decision to detain was made. The court was satisfied that the Minister's decision was both lawful and procedurally fair, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs.

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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.