SZLVU v Minister for Immigration

[2009] FMCA 605

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLVU & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2009] FMCA 605

MIGRATION – Application to dismiss where application is in respect of a decision already subject to failed judicial review proceedings – whether orders should be made under Part 13 Rule 13.11.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001
Federal Magistrates Act 1999

First Applicant: SZLVU

Second Applicant: SZLVV

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 730 of 2009

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 18 June 2009

Date of Last Submission: 18 June 2009

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 18 June 2009

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondents: DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. Substantive application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

2. No further application by the applicant seeking a review of RRT decision dated 19 November 2007 with RRT reference number 071539749 may be brought without prior payment of $1,500.00 being the assessed costs of the respondent of this application.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 730 of 2009

SZLVU

First Applicant

SZLVV

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an interim application made by the First and Second Respondent to strike out an application pursuant to the provisions of Part 13 Rule 13.10 of Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (the “Rules”).  In short, this is the familiar case where an applicant has sought judicial review from all available courts including the High Court of Australia, failed in each, and started again in this jurisdiction.

2. It is usually considered that such activity constitutes an abuse of the processes of this court and generally offends against the rule of res judicata and invariably such a case will have no real prospects of success.  This case is no different from the many others save that the applicant has made absolutely no attempt orally to convince me that there is any merit in the claim.

3. I would therefore propose, based on the affidavit of Mr Johnson affirmed on 17 April 2009, to make the findings about the previous history of the case set out therein and to grant the application with costs. 

4. Mr Johnson also seeks that I make orders under Part 13 Rule 13.11 which deal with the issue of vexatious proceedings. He seeks that I make orders preventing this applicant from making any further application without leave of the court. I am not prepared to make such orders, which would effectively declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, but what I would propose to do, utilising the general powers of the court under the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (the “Act”), is to order that no further application seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal signed on 19 November 2007 with RRT case number 071539749 may be brought without the leave of the court prior to the payment by the applicant of the costs of this motion which I assess in the sum of $1,500.00.  I dismiss the substantive application as requested.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Associate: 

Date:  25 June 2009