SZEKF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 9

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEKF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 9

SZEKF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD1807 OF 2004

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
10 JANUARY 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1807 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	SZEKF APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 JANUARY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal are dismissed with 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 1807 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	SZEKF APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	10 JANUARY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal and for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate given on 12 November 2004.  The respondent’s submissions outline the reasons given orally by the Magistrate which led the Magistrate to conclude that no reasonable cause of action had been disclosed and, accordingly, to exercise the discretion to dismiss the application for judicial review.

2. On accepted authority the Magistrate’s decision is interlocutory in nature.  The applicant is several days out of time but had he been able to persuade me that there is some reasonable basis for appealing from the Magistrate’s judgment or that there was some error of principle, I would have been disposed to grant an extension of time. 

3. However, I am not satisfied that any reasonable basis for appeal from the Magistrate has been shown.  In particular, the affidavit and grounds of appeal disclose no proper basis on which there can be a review of either the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision or setting aside the Magistrate's judgment.

4. On the hearing this morning, the applicant, who was previously in detention but has now been discharged from detention, indicated to me that he was prepared to return to India in a short period of time, but that he would have some difficulty in returning immediately.

5. I am not persuaded that any error has been shown in the Federal Magistrate's judgment or indicated in the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision.  Accordingly, in these circumstances I dismiss the application with costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:            10 January 2005

The Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	10 January 2005
Date of Judgment:	10 January 2005