SZEDQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2005] FCA 591


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEDQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 591

MIGRATION – application for extension of time for leave to appeal from judgment of Federal Magistrates Court given in absence of applicant – refused as application to set aside should be made to Federal Magistrates Court

Rules of Federal Magistrates Court, Pt 13.04, Pt 16.05

SZEDQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 571 OF 2005

GYLES J
4 MAY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 571 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZEDQ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application for extension of time for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

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

NSD571 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZEDQ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE:

4 MAY 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application both for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal and for leave to do so.  The circumstances are that on 17 February 2005 (SZEDQ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 129) Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 15 June 2004. That judgment was given in the absence of the applicant in accordance with Pt 13.04A(d). Part 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Rules deals with setting aside of judgments and, as is usual in rules of court, 16.05(2) provides that:

    ‘The court may vary or set aside its judgment or order after it has been entered if:

    (a) the order is made in the absence of a party.’

  2. In situations like that it is always open to a party against whom a default judgment has been entered - that is, a judgment when that party is absent – to make application to that court for the judgment to be set aside and to be heard thereafter.  I have, in other cases, dealing with other jurisdictions, insisted upon that course being taken before any leave to appeal to this Court should be granted.

  3. In those circumstances, I dismiss the application for extension of time for leave to appeal.  I order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated:             13 May 2005

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing: 4 May 2005
Date of Judgment: 4 May 2005
Details
AGLC
SZEDQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 591
Case
[2005] FCA 591
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an applicant, referred to as Szedq, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Szedq sought an extension of time to appeal a decision related to their immigration status. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the extension should be granted. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant had a justifiable reason for the delay in seeking the extension of time, and if the delay was without reasonable excuse, whether exceptional circumstances existed that warranted granting the extension.

The court examined the grounds for the delay and considered whether the applicant had acted with due diligence in pursuing the appeal. The court assessed whether the reasons provided by Szedq were compelling enough to warrant an extension of time. The court also evaluated the concept of "exceptional circumstances" as a basis for granting an extension. The decision hinged on the balance between the importance of timeliness in legal proceedings and the circumstances that might justify an extension.

In reaching its decision, the court found that Szedq did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the court concluded that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed. The court further ordered that Szedq pay the costs incurred by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs as a result of the application. This outcome reflects the court's stance on the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines in legal matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for extension of time for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

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

GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.