SZRTI v Minister for Immigration - [2012] FMCA 886

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZRTI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2012] FMCA 886

MIGRATION – Review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal – whether time should be extended to applicant to file an application for judicial review – whether applicant’s explanation for delay in filing application satisfactory – whether application for judicial review has sufficient prospects of success such that it would be in the interests of justice to extend time – application for extension of time refused.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.65, 426A, 477

M211 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunaland Another (2004) 212 ALR 520
Daniel v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 205 ALR 198
Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang and Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259

Applicant:

SZRTI

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 1896 of 2012

Judgment of:

Emmett FM

Hearing date:

18 September 2012

Date of Last Submission:

18 September 2012

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

18 September 2012

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi language.

Appearing for the Respondents:

Ms B Rayment

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

The applicant’s application for leave to extend time to allow her to rely on an application, filed 31 August 2012, seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 18 April 2012, is refused.
The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $1,296.

NOTE: The application for costs is in accordance with the relevant schedule in the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1896 of 2012

SZRTI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for an extension of time pursuant to s.477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) brought by the applicant in circumstances where her application for judicial review, filed 31 August 2012, was filed more than 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Section 477 of the Act is as follows:
“Time limits on applications to the Federal Magistrates Court
(1) An application to the Federal Magistrates Court for a remedy to be granted in exercise of the court's original jurisdiction under section 476 in relation to a migration decision must be made to the court within 35 days of the date of the migration decision.
(2) The Federal Magistrates Court may, by order, extend that 35 day period as the Federal Magistrates Court considers appropriate if:
(a) an application for that order has been made in writing to the Federal Magistrates Court specifying why the applicant considers that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make the order; and
(b) the Federal Magistrates Court is satisfied…

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 SZRTI 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: [2012] FMCA 886
Decision Date: 18 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZRTI v Minister for Immigration involved an application for leave to extend time, filed by the applicant, SZRTI, seeking to rely on an application for judicial review dated 31 August 2012. This application was in response to a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 18 April 2012. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to bring her application for judicial review, which would allow her to challenge the Tribunal's decision. The applicant argued that the extension was necessary due to delays in obtaining legal advice and documentation, which she claimed were beyond her control.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's circumstances constituted "exceptional circumstances" that would warrant an extension of time. The court considered the principles surrounding the grant of such extensions, focusing on whether the applicant had acted with due diligence in pursuing her application for judicial review. The applicant's explanations for the delay were scrutinized, and the court weighed the merits of granting the extension against the principle of finality in legal proceedings. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the extension of time.

In its judgment, the court held that the application for leave to extend time should be refused. The reasons provided by the applicant were not deemed exceptional enough to warrant an extension, and the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural timelines. Additionally, the court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, which were fixed at $1,296. This decision underscores the stringent approach courts take when considering applications for extensions of time in judicial review matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant’s application for leave to extend time to allow her to rely on an application, filed 31 August 2012, seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 18 April 2012, is refused.

The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $1,296.

NOTE: The application for costs is in accordance with the relevant schedule in the

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.