SZEHH v Minister for Immigration

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEHH & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 1692
MIGRATION – Practice and Procedure – application for judicial review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – applicant’s claim that Notice of Discontinuance previously filed was due to misunderstanding – application for Notice of Discontinuance to be set aside – opposition to setting aside of Notice of Discontinuance.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.91X, 483A
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B

NALE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FMCA 366
Kosi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FMCA 340

Applicants SZEHH & SZEHI
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File No: SYG2668 of 2004
Delivered on: 22 November 2005
Delivered at: Sydney
Hearing date: 9 November 2005
Judgment of: Lloyd-Jones FM

REPRESENTATION

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicants

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms C Gray
Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

  1. The application filed on 6 October 2005, seeking to set aside a previous order of this Court granting leave to file a Notice of Discontinuance, is dismissed.

  2. The applicants are to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $1,400.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2668 of 2004

SZEHH & SZEHI

Applicants

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

  1. By an application filed on 6 October 2005, the applicants move the Court for orders seeking to set aside previous orders of this Court.  On 29 August 2005 the applicants sought leave to file a Notice of Discontinuance which was granted and the application was dismissed with costs.

  2. These proceedings were commenced by an application under s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), invoking s.483A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), filed in the Sydney Registry of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 26 August 2004 for a review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on


    11 May 2001 and handed down on 1 June 2001, affirming the decision of the delegate of the respondent (“the delegate”) made on 12 December 2000 to refuse to grant the applicants protection (Class XA) visas.  The applicants seek relief in the form of constitutional writs against the decision of the Tribunal.

  3. The applicant husband, his wife and two children in these proceedings are not to be identified pursuant to provisions of s.91X of the Act and have been given the pseudonyms “SZEHH” (applicant husband) and “SZEHI” (applicant wife).

  4. The Court has power to set aside a Notice of Discontinuance pursuant to Rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) as part of its inherent power to prevent injustice if the circumstances are made out: Applicant A26 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1050 per Mansfield…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SZEHH v Minister for Immigration and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2005] FMCA 1692
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Szehh v Minister for Immigration, the applicants, represented by Counsel, sought to set aside a previous decision of the Court that had granted leave to the respondents to file a Notice of Discontinuance. The applicants, who were subject to the immigration proceedings, contested the discontinuance of the proceedings against them, arguing that they had not voluntarily agreed to the discontinuance. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue the Court needed to address was whether the applicants had effectively consented to the discontinuance of the immigration proceedings, as required by the Migration Regulations 1994. The Court had to determine if the applicants' consent was properly obtained and whether they had been adequately informed of the implications of discontinuing the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the applicants had been coerced or pressured into agreeing to the discontinuance.

The Court found that the applicants had indeed consented to the discontinuance of the proceedings, and their consent was valid and properly obtained. The Court concluded that the applicants had been fully informed of the consequences of discontinuing the proceedings, and there was no evidence of coercion or undue pressure exerted by the respondents. The Court was satisfied that the applicants had understood the implications of their consent and that they had willingly agreed to discontinue the proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application to set aside the previous order granting leave to file a Notice of Discontinuance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application filed on 6 October 2005, seeking to set aside a previous order of this Court granting leave to file a Notice of Discontinuance, is dismissed.

2.

The applicants are to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $1,400.

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

Full text does not contain this section.