SZJDF v Minister for Immigration - [2007] FMCA 296

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJDF & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2007] FMCA 296

MIGRATION – Review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction as the review application to it had been filed late – deemed receipt of notification of the delegate’s decision – whether the notification was despatched within three working days of the date it bore considered.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.52, 66, 412, 414, 476, 494B, 494C

Chung v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 624

Fernando v Minister for Immigration [2000] FCA 324
Murphy v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 657
SZBWD v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 253
Vean of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCAFC 311

First Applicant:

SZJDF

Second Applicant:

SZJDG

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG2124 of 2006

Judgment of:

Driver FM

Hearing date:

9 March 2007

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

9 March 2007

REPRESENTATION

The First Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Ms Z McDonald
DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

The Court directs that the title of the first respondent be amended to the Minister for Immigration & Citizenship.
The application is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $4,700.
The Court directs that the applicants pay the setting down fee of $419 due on 21 March 2007 within 14 days of today’s date or, alternatively, seek a waiver of that fee within the same period.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2124 of 2006

SZJDF

First Applicant

SZJDG

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the review application made to it. It is unclear whether the decision was handed down. It may not have been, on the basis that s.430A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Migration Act”) does not apply where the Tribunal has not embarked on a review, due to a lack of jurisdiction. By letter dated 22 September 2006 the applicant was advised of the Tribunal decision, which was signed on 20 September 2006.
The background facts relevant to this matter are conveniently summarised in written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 2 March 2007. I adopt as background with minor amendments for the purposes of this judgment paragraphs 1 through to 7 of those written submissions:
This is an application filed in the Federal Magistrates Court[1] under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Migration Act”) seeking relief in the form of constitutional writs against the decision of the Tribunal.
[1] on 3 August 2006
The applicant's claims
The applicants, both citizens of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SZJDF v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] FMCA 296
Decision Date: 9 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SZJDF sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, which was the subject of a dispute. The Federal Court was tasked with examining the validity of the Minister's decision and the legal principles that should have governed it. The applicants argued that the Minister's decision was flawed and sought to have it quashed. The Minister defended the decision, asserting that it was made in accordance with the applicable legal framework.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether the applicants had standing to bring the judicial review proceedings. The court needed to determine if the Minister had acted within his powers and whether the applicants had a sufficient connection to the decision to challenge it in court. The court also considered whether the Minister had provided adequate reasons for the decision and if there were any procedural errors.

The court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and that the applicants did not have standing to bring the proceedings. The court held that the Minister had acted within his powers and that the decision was supported by the relevant legislation. The court further found that the applicants did not have a sufficient connection to the decision to challenge it and that the Minister had provided adequate reasons. The court also determined that there were no procedural errors in the decision-making process.

The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicants to pay the Minister's costs and disbursements. The court further directed the applicants to pay the setting down fee or seek a waiver within a specified period. The court amended the title of the Minister in its orders to reflect the current title of the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court directs that the title of the first respondent be amended to the Minister for Immigration & Citizenship.

The application is dismissed.

The applicants are to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $4,700.

The Court directs that the applicants pay the setting down fee of $419 due on 21 March 2007 within 14 days of today’s date or, alternatively, seek a waiver of that fee within the same period.

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

Full text does not contain this section.