FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZFCI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1754
SZFCI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1732 OF 2005MOORE J
28 NOVEMBER 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1732 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZCFI
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 NOVEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The Appellant 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 1732 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZCFI
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
28 NOVEMBER 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal against a judgement of a Federal Magistrate of 30 August 2005 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 11 November 2004.
The application for judicial review raised two grounds. The first was that the Tribunal was biased and the second was that the Tribunal did not refer to sufficient independent country information and did not give the appellant a chance to explain the inconsistencies noted by the Tribunal in its reasons for decision. The Federal Magistrate rejected those grounds of review.
The notice of appeal repeats the allegation that the Tribunal was biased. It also points to the fact that the Federal Magistrate gave an ex tempore judgment. Nothing has been put to me in this appeal which suggests that the Tribunal was biased nor that the Federal Magistrate erred in concluding it was not. The appeal otherwise does not appear to raise any tenable ground upon which the decision of the Tribunal might be set aside.
The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate:
Dated: 23 December 2005
The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: T Reilly Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 28 November 2005 Date of Judgment: 28 November 2005
- AGLC
- SZFCI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1754
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1754
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Minister's decision to detain the individual was valid under the Migration Act and whether SZFCI had standing to bring the appeal. The court had to determine whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether SZFCI had the necessary standing to bring the appeal on behalf of the individual. The court also had to consider whether the Minister's decision was unreasonable or based on irrelevant considerations.
In its decision, the court held that the Minister's decision to detain the individual was valid under the Migration Act. The court found that the Minister's decision was not based on irrelevant considerations and was not unreasonable. The court also found that SZFCI did not have standing to bring the appeal on behalf of the individual, as it was not an "affected person" as defined in the Migration Act. The court held that SZFCI did not have a sufficient connection to the individual or the circumstances of the case to bring the appeal. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The Appellant pay the First Respondent's costs.
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
Established by: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.