FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDZS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 956SZDZS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 899 of 2005WILCOX J
8 JULY 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 899 of 2005
BETWEEN:
SZDZS
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 JULY 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to Order 10, Rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules, the appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.
3.No application to set aside this order shall be filed unless it is accompanied by an amended notice of appeal identifying, with precision, the alleged jurisdictional error or errors of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
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 899 of 2005
BETWEEN:
SZDZS
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
WILCOX J
DATE:
8 JULY 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILCOX J:
This matter was listed for a directions hearing today at 9.30am. It is now 10.10am. The appellant has not appeared, although his name has been called outside the court-room. The notice of appeal, which was filed by the appellant, showed the time for directions, namely, ‘9.30 am Friday 8 July 2005’. The appellant must have been aware of the fact of the directions hearing. The writing on the last page of the notice of appeal warned that, in the absence of an appearance, orders may be made.
It seems to me there is no warrant for adjourning the matter. No application has been made by the appellant and the appellant has not even taken the trouble to communicate with the Court.
The order I make pursuant to Order 10, Rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
No application to set aside this order shall be filed unless it is accompanied by an amended notice of appeal identifying, with precision, the alleged jurisdictional error or errors of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
I add that direction because the notice of appeal is totally unhelpful. It is not good enough for a notice of appeal to make a general statement that fairness procedures were not observed. I intend that any amended notice of appeal must specify what, exactly, was the relevant fairness procedure and in what way it was not observed.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox. Associate:
Dated: 12 July 2005
There was no appearance for the Appellant. Solicitors for the Respondent: Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 8 July 2005 Date of Judgment: 8 July 2005
- AGLC
- SZDZS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 956
- Case
- [2005] FCA 956
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the RRT had properly considered the applicant's claims and evidence and whether there was any jurisdictional error in the RRT's decision. Specifically, the court had to examine if the RRT failed to consider the applicant's country information and personal circumstances adequately and whether the decision-making process complied with the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court was also required to assess whether the RRT's decision was unreasonable or failed to consider relevant material.
The court held that the RRT's decision was lawful and that the appeal should be dismissed. The Federal Court found that the RRT had indeed considered the relevant country information and personal circumstances of the applicant. The court ruled that the RRT had not made any jurisdictional error in its decision-making process. Furthermore, the court determined that the appeal did not meet the threshold for setting aside the RRT's decision, as it lacked a precise identification of the alleged jurisdictional errors. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to Order 10, Rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules, the appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.
3. No application to set aside this order shall be filed unless it is accompanied by an amended notice of appeal identifying, with precision, the alleged jurisdictional error or errors of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
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: WILCOX J
Full text does not contain this section.