SZGWC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 81

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGWC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 81

SZGWC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2381 OF 2005

MADGWICK J
6 FEBRUARY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2381 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZGWC
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent.

2.The application for leave be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $800.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2381 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZGWC
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	6 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: 

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 27 October 2005 which dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) given on 21 July 2000.  

2. The applicant is seven days out of time with his application for leave to appeal and an extension of time would be required.  He has given some slim explanation of the delay and I would prefer to deal with the matter on the merits of the application for leave to appeal.  I will extend time for the filing of the application for leave to appeal until 25 November 2005, the application having in fact been filed on 24 November 2005.

3. The learned Federal Magistrate declined to grant the applicant’s application for an adjournment and dealt with the more or less ‘boilerplate’ grounds of the application to review the Tribunal decision.  His Honour shortly, it would appear more or less unarguably, rejected the various challenges and in any event held that:

   ‘Even if there were a ground for a review of this decision, in my view the delay in commencing proceedings is so excessive and so poorly explained that it would be quite wrong to grant relief.’

4. The intended notice of appeal does not deal with any error of the learned Magistrate in any comprehensible way.  The applicant also asks the Court to appoint a lawyer for him on the basis that he has no chance of arguing a case without a lawyer.  The case appears quite hopeless to me.  There seems to be no doubt of the correctness of the learned Magistrate’s decision and I do not propose to trouble any member of the legal profession with the matter.

5. The application for leave will be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $800.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:            13 February 2006

Solicitor for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	6 February 2006
Date of Judgment:	6 February 2006