SZKAK v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 1652
•10 November 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZKAK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 1652 |
| MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – matter previously dealt with by courts – application dismissed. |
| Applicant: | SZKAK |
| Respondents: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP & ANOTHER |
| File Number: | SYG 1976 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Riley FM |
| Hearing date: | 10 November 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 10 November 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 10 November 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | In person |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Ms S. Koya |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | DLA Phillips Fox |
ORDERS
The application filed on 31 July is dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2500.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
SYG 1976 of 2008
| SZKAK |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP & ANOTHER |
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Revised from transcript
This is an application, firstly, seeking an adjournment of a show cause hearing. The applicant says that he wishes to obtain legal assistance. The applicant has not said what steps he has taken to obtain legal assistance. He said that he had a lawyer in Sydney, but the case was transferred to Melbourne and he does not have a lawyer here.
The first respondent opposes the adjournment. The first respondent has filed an affidavit which indicates that the applicant has already sought review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) that is now in issue. The applicant agreed that his matter had been heard in the Federal Magistrates Court and in the Federal Court on appeal, and that the applicant unsuccessfully sought special leave to appeal to the High Court. The applicant has now filed a fresh application in this court. He says that he wishes to argue the same grounds that he has run previously.
The first respondent says that the whole proceeding should be dismissed on the ground that it is an abuse of process. The first respondent says that if there is any other ground that the applicant now wishes to run, he ought to have raised the ground in the earlier proceeding in accordance with the principles of Anshun estoppel. The first respondent also points out that the applicant was represented in at least part of the earlier proceedings.
The applicant says that he is particularly concerned about an anonymous letter that was sent to the Tribunal. That is a matter that was specifically considered by the Federal Court.
In all the circumstances, I do not consider that there is a proper basis for granting an adjournment in this case to enable the applicant to get a lawyer. The applicant has not explained how he would go about getting a lawyer. The applicant has already had the benefit of an exhaustive legal process. In all the circumstances, I consider that the application for the adjournment should be refused. Additionally, I consider that in all the circumstances it is appropriate for the matter to be dismissed as an abuse of process.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riley FM
Associate: Catherine Wilson
Date: 7 January 2009
0
0
0