FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZHDH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 64
SZHDH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2276 OF 2005MADGWICK J
6 FEBRUARY 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2276 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZHDH
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 FEBRUARY 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $900.
2.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2276 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZHDH
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE:
6 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR:
This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 17 November 2005. The applicant for leave was advised on 11 January 2006 that the case was fixed for hearing today at 10.15 am. It is now after 10.45 am and there is no appearance by the applicant. The first respondent asks that the proceeding be dismissed for want of prosecution of the proceeding with due diligence pursuant to Order 35A rules 2(1)(f) and 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.
The proceedings in the court below were dismissed by the learned Magistrate as an abuse of process and for delay. The case for the applicant does not appear promising, to say the least of it, and it seems to me appropriate to dismiss the proceedings for non-prosecution with costs assessed, as asked, in the sum of $900.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. Associate:
Dated: 9 February 2006
Solicitor for the Applicant: There was no appearance for the applicant. Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 6 February 2006 Date of Judgment: 6 February 2006
- AGLC
- SZHDH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 64
- Case
- [2006] FCA 64
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the RRT erred in its interpretation of the definition of a refugee under the relevant statutes and whether the RRT failed to properly consider the evidence presented by the applicant. The court had to determine if the RRT's decision was legally sound, taking into account the correct application of the law and the evidence available.
In delivering its judgment, the court found that the RRT had correctly applied the law and made its decision based on a proper consideration of the evidence. The court held that the RRT's assessment of the applicant's circumstances and their claim to refugee status was comprehensive and did not contain any errors of law. As such, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered the applicant to pay costs of $900. The court also ruled that the Refugee Review Tribunal should be joined as the second respondent in the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $900.
2. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent.
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: MADGWICK J
Full text does not contain this section.