SZKJC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 1285

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKJC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1285

SZKJC AND SZKJD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1030 OF 2007

MADGWICK J
14 AUGUST 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1030 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZKJC
First Applicant

SZKJD
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicants pay the first respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $1,200.00.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1030 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZKJC
First Applicant

SZKJD
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	14 AUGUST 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court.  The court below was hearing an application by the first respondent in the principal proceedings to dismiss an application by the present applicants for judicial review of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) because the application showed no arguable basis for the relief sought.

2. The amended application for judicial review was in “template form,” garbled and, in parts, having ludicrously little connection, or none, with the case at hand.  Nevertheless Smith FM considered “the reasons and procedures of the tribunal.”  His Honour said that he could see no arguable jurisdictional error affecting its decision.

3. Neither can I.

4. His Honour’s decision is attended by insufficient doubt to warrant leave to appeal and leave will be refused with costs, assessed in the sum of $1200.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:       20 August 2007

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	14 August 2007
Date of Judgment:	14 August 2007