SZDZS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2005] FCA 956


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDZS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 956

SZDZS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 899 of 2005

WILCOX J
8 JULY 2005
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 899 of 2005

BETWEEN:

SZDZS
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

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
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX J

DATE:

8 JULY 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

  1. 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. 

  2. 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.

  3. The order I make pursuant to Order 10, Rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

  4. 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. 

  5. 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
Details
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 appeal was brought by SZDZS, an applicant for a protection visa, against a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The dispute centred on the RRT's decision to affirm the Department's refusal to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the RRT had erred in its decision-making process.

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

WILCOX J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WILCOX J

Full text does not contain this section.