SZQYP v Hannigan

Case [2012] FCA 723

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZQYP v Hannigan [2012] FCA 723

Citation: SZQYP v Hannigan [2012] FCA 723
Parties: SZQYP, SZQYQ, SZQYR, SZQYS and SZQYT v PATRICIA HANNIGAN, DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR and MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
File number: NSD 946 of 2012
Judge: KATZMANN J
Date of judgment: 6 July 2012
Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW –– Review of decision by registrar to refuse to accept documents for filing under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 – applicants sought to file application for leave to appeal from judgment of Federal Magistrates Court refusing to order an extension of time to apply for judicial review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – registrar stated that proceeding is doomed to fail as Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether decision of registrar affected by error of law – discretion to refuse relief
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 5(1)(e), 5(1)(f), 5(2)(b)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24, 37M
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 2.26
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 474, 476A(3)(a), 477
Cases cited:

Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Kamha v Prudential Regulation Authority (2005) 147 FCR 516
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales & Anor (2010) 239 CLR 531
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZKKC (2007) 159 FCR 565
Plaintiff S157 v The Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476
Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (NSW) (1999) 198 CLR 435
Rahman v Hedge [2012] FCA 68

SZQDZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 200 FCR 207
SZQPN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 424
SZQYP & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2012] FMCA 569
United Telecasters Sydney Ltd v Hardy (1991) 23 NSWLR 323
Date of hearing: 6 July 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 32
Solicitor for the Applicants: Mr T Silva of Silva Solicitors
Solicitor for the First Respondent No appearance for the first respondent
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Mr A Markus of Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 946 of 2012
BETWEEN:

SZQYP
First Applicant

SZQYQ
Second Applicant

SZQYR
Third Applicant

SZQYS
Fourth Applicant

SZQYT
Fifth Applicant
AND:

PATRICIA HANNIGAN, DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR
First Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

KATZMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 JULY 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The originating application be treated as an application for orders under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

2.Compliance with rr 31.01 and 31.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 be dispensed with.

3.The application be dismissed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 946 of 2012
BETWEEN:

SZQYP
First Applicant

SZQYQ
Second Applicant

Continue reading SZQYP v Hannigan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SZQYP v Hannigan [2012] FCA 723
Case
[2012] FCA 723
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, SZQYP, sought judicial review of a decision by a registrar of the Federal Court of Australia, who refused to accept documents for filing. The documents were intended to commence an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court, which had refused to grant an extension of time to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The registrar's decision was based on the premise that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicants argued that the registrar's decision was affected by an error of law and that the court should exercise its discretion to grant relief.

The court considered whether the registrar's decision was affected by an error of law, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant relief. The court held that the registrar's decision was not affected by an error of law, as the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court noted that section 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provided that an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court could only be heard by the Federal Court if the decision involved a question of law of general public significance, or if the Federal Court granted leave. The court found that neither of these conditions was satisfied in this case.

The court also considered whether it should exercise its discretion to grant relief. The court noted that the applicants had not identified any error of law in the registrar's decision, and that the court was not satisfied that the applicants had a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The court held that it would not exercise its discretion to grant relief.

The court dismissed the application and made orders treating the originating application as an application for orders under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), dispensing with compliance with rules 31.01 and 31.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, and dismissing the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The originating application be treated as an application for orders under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

2. Compliance with rr 31.01 and 31.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 be dispensed with.

3. The application be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

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.