SZGGS v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 1775

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGGS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1775

MIGRATION – Dismissal of substantive application for abuse of process.

Applicant: SZGGS

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG3112 of 2006

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 20 November 2006

Date of Last Submission: 20 November 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 20 November 2006

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Applicant in person

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. Substantive application dismissed.

2. The Registry shall not accept for filing any further application for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 21 July 1997 or the decision of the second respondent Refugee Review Tribunal made on 13 July 1999 or the decision of the second respondent Refugee Review Tribunal made on 5 October 2006 or any other decision relating to the applicant’s application for a protection visa lodged on 9 January 1997 without prior leave of the court.

3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceedings assessed in the sum of $1,750, such costs to be paid within 28 days.   

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

(P)SYG3112 of 2006

SZGGS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In a few weeks’ time this applicant will have been in Australia for 10 years.  He has used his time well.  He has brought no less than 10 applications to the Federal Courts of this country which are listed in ground 1(b) of the response.  He now seeks a further opportunity for the court to hold that a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 13 July 1999 did not properly assign to him the status of a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations.

2. He seeks to do this through an application to review a decision of the Tribunal made on 5 October 2006 declining to review again a decision of the delegate made on 21 July 1997.  The Tribunal’s decision indicated that it had no jurisdiction to deal with a matter that had already been the subject of review some nine years previously and the subject of judicial review applications throughout the Federal Court system ending on 26 June 2006 in the High Court of Australia.

3. Details of the applicant’s previous proceedings before the court are contained in the response and in the affidavit of Mr Andras Markus dated 9 November 2006 and as they will be familiar to the applicant there is no need for me to rehearse them in these reasons.  Suffice to say I am satisfied that this is a case where summary judgment should be given on the grounds firstly, that the application itself is doomed to failure because the decision of the Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction is unimpeachable and, secondly, because the series of proceedings which the applicant has brought previously make this latest proceeding an abuse of the processes of the court.

4. I will uphold the respondent’s notice of motion and make the following orders. The substantive application shall be dismissed as the proceeding or claim for relief has no reasonable prospect of success. Further the proceeding or claim for relief is an abuse of the process of the court.  The court further orders that the Registry not accept for filing any further application for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 21 July 1997 or the decision of the second respondent Refugee Review Tribunal made on 13 July 1999 or the decision of the second respondent Refugee Review Tribunal made on 5 October 2006 or any other decision relating to the applicant’s application for a protection visa lodged on 9 January 1997 without prior leave of the court.  The court also orders that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceedings which I assess in the sum of $1,750, such costs to be paid within 28 days.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Associate: 

Date: