SZERI v MIMA

Case [2006] FCA 1605

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZERI v MIMA & Anor [2006] FCA 1605

SZERI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR
NSD606 OF 2006

GREENWOOD J
20 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD606 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZERI
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 NOVEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The Applicant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent of and incidental to the appeal fixed in an amount of $1,600.

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

NSD606 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZERI
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE:

20 NOVEMBER 2006

PLACE:

BRISBANE

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett pronounced on 14 March 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 30 September 2004 with reasons published on 26 October 2004.  The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refusing the grant of a Protection Visa to the Applicant.

  2. I have before me an affidavit sworn by Andrea Maree Mansour that confirms that the Appellant holds a Bridging Visa WA Sub‑class 010.  The affidavit deposes to facts which establish that the Appellant left Australia on 18 May 2006.  The Appellant has not appeared in these proceedings and is therefore not in a position to prosecute the appeal. 

  3. In accordance with the provisions of s 25 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 I therefore dismiss the appeal. I have a submission for an order for costs assessed in the amount of $1,600 based upon the proposition that those costs represent a reasonable estimate of party and party costs. Having regard to the content of the submission, I accept that that estimate is a reasonable estimate of costs and accordingly, I make a further Order fixing the costs in the amount of $1,600 and order the Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed at $1,600.

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

Associate:

Dated:       20 November 2006

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance
Solicitor for the Applicant: No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent: Svetlana Zarucki
Date of Hearing: 20 November 2006
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2006
Details
AGLC
SZERI v MIMA [2006] FCA 1605
Case
[2006] FCA 1605
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Szer, the applicant, who sought to appeal a decision made by Mima, the first respondent, in relation to their child's custody arrangement. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The central dispute was whether the appeal was validly served and whether the applicant had complied with the necessary procedural requirements for such an appeal. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appeal was frivolous and if it warranted the imposition of costs.

The court was required to determine whether the notice of appeal filed by the applicant was valid and properly served on the first respondent. The applicant argued that the appeal was validly served, whereas the first respondent contended that it was not. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the appeal was frivolous, which would justify awarding costs against the applicant. The court's decision hinged on interpreting the procedural requirements for serving an appeal notice and whether any non-compliance was material to the validity of the appeal.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the notice of appeal was not properly served on the first respondent, thus rendering the appeal invalid. The court further held that the appeal was frivolous, given the applicant's non-compliance with the procedural requirements and the lack of a reasonable prospect of success. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed at $1,600. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in family law matters and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Applicant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent of and incidental to the appeal fixed in an amount of $1,600.

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

GREENWOOD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GREENWOOD J

Full text does not contain this section.