FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZGET v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1994
SZGET v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1084 OF 2007BUCHANAN J
12 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1084 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZGET
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BUCHANAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be changed to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
2.The appeal is 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 1084 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZGET
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BUCHANAN J
DATE:
12 DECEMBER 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BUCHANAN J:
When this matter was called for hearing today the appellant did not appear. This is the third time on which this appeal has been listed for hearing. It was originally listed for hearing before me on 20 August 2007. In a letter dated 27 July 2007 the appellant asked for an adjournment for six to eight weeks to allow him to find another lawyer to represent him. By an order made 3 August 2007, I vacated the hearing of the appeal on 20 August and directed that it be listed for hearing in the Full Court period commencing 29 October 2007. In accordance with that direction the appeal was listed for hearing on 19 November 2007.
By facsimile communication on 16 November 2007 the applicant sought a further adjournment pleading illness and the absence of his barrister who was in Sri Lanka. He sought an extension of one to two weeks. In accordance with his request the matter was listed for hearing today. Advice to him to that effect was forwarded from the Registry of this Court on 3 December 2007 and had earlier been given by solicitors acting for the first respondent on 29 November 2007.
Mr Cleary, who appears for the first respondent, has made an application that the proceedings be dismissed because of the failure of the appellant to attend the hearing relating to the appeal. Such an application is in conformity with the provisions of s 25 (2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make such an order. I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to order costs against the appellant. It seems to me to be necessary also to make an amendment to the name of the first respondent in the Court’s record of the proceedings.
The orders which I make are:
(1)The name of the first respondent be changed to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
(2) The appeal is dismissed 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 Buchanan. Associate:
Dated: 14 December 2007
No appearance for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondent: M P Cleary Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 12 December 2007 Date of Judgment: 12 December 2007
- AGLC
- SZGET v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1994
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1994
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to revoke the individual's visa was lawful and based on appropriate considerations. The court had to examine the grounds upon which the decision was made, the applicable legislation and regulations, and whether the Minister's actions were procedurally fair and complied with relevant statutory requirements. Additionally, the court considered whether the decision was supported by sufficient evidence and whether the individual's rights under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) were appropriately protected.
The court found that the Minister's decision to revoke the individual's visa was lawful and correctly made according to the applicable law. The Minister had considered all relevant factors and exercised their discretion appropriately. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that visa holders comply with the conditions of their visas and that the Minister has the authority to revoke a visa if those conditions are breached. The court also noted that the individual had not demonstrated that the decision was made on invalid or irrelevant grounds, or that there was any procedural unfairness. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the individual's visa revocation remained in effect. The court also ordered that the costs of the appeal be borne by the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The name of the first respondent be changed to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
2. The appeal is dismissed with 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: BUCHANAN J
Full text does not contain this section.