SZGIE v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 175

[2006] HCATrans 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S556 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZGIE

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2006, AT 2.02 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Jacobson J). By those orders, Jacobson J dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing, as an abuse of process, an application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.

The application to the Federal Magistrates Court followed earlier litigation in relation to challenging the Tribunal decision, which included application to the Federal Magistrates Court, appeal to the Federal Court and an application for special leave.  Smith FM concluded that the previous litigation provided an absolute answer to the present application and that the present application was doomed to fail on principles of res judicata or estoppel.  This is because the present application did not identify any ground of review which could not reasonably have been raised previously and there were no exceptional circumstances.  On appeal, Jacobson J held that the decision of Smith FM was not attended by any doubt and there was no injustice in refusing leave.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The applicant’s draft notice of appeal states that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by rejecting his claims in relation to extortion and finding that he could relocate.  The applicant’s written submissions in support of the application are formulaic and fail to deal with the issues of res judicata or estoppel.

The present application for relief was made long after the decision that it seeks to impugn.  The intervening period has been occupied with other litigation seeking to achieve a like outcome.  Regardless of the application of doctrines of preclusion, a question we need not consider, the relief sought should inevitably be refused:  Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82 at 106‑108 [53]‑[56] per Gaudron and Gummow JJ.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 2.04 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED