SZEGE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1316

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEGE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1316

SZEGE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1286 OF 2006

MOORE J
5 OCTOBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1286 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZEGE
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 OCTOBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The purported appeal is dismissed.

3.The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as a respondent.

4.The applicant pay the first 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 1286 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZEGE
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	5 OCTOBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. By judgment of 21 June 2006 a Federal Magistrate dismissed an application filed on 22 November 2005: see SZEGE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] FMCA 946. In that application the applicant sought judicial review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. A decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the delegate’s decision has previously been the subject of proceedings before the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court: see SZEGE v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 527, SZEGE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 783, SZEGE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 911.

2. In his reasons for judgment, the Federal Magistrate addressed the issues raised by the applicant in his application and his submissions and found the application was an abuse of process.  Finding that he had no jurisdiction to hear an application for review of a delegate’s decision that had already been reviewed by the Refugee Review Tribunal, he dismissed the application.  It is not apparent to me that His Honour erred in reaching that conclusion.

3. While the proceedings in this court purport to be an appeal, the decision against which the appeal is brought is one in respect of which leave to appeal is required.  It appears to me the appeal is doomed to fail as the Federal Magistrate was correct in concluding that the application was an abuse of process.  Accordingly, I refuse leave to appeal with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:        23 October 2006

Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the First Respondent:	M Allars
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing:	5 October 2006
Date of Judgment:	5 October 2006