SZTNW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Case [2015] FCA 619


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTNW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 619

Citation: SZTNW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 619
Appeal from: Application for extension of time and leave to appeal: SZTNW v Minister for Immigration & Anor (No 2) [2014] FCCA 2214
Parties: SZTNW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number(s): NSD 1117 of 2014
Judge(s): BENNETT J
Date of judgment: 9 February 2015
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 35.13(a), 35.33
Date of hearing: 9 February 2015
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms SA Given for Sparke Helmore
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1117 of 2014

BETWEEN:

SZTNW
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 FEBRUARY 2015

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed under r 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.

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 1117 of 2014

BETWEEN:

SZTNW
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE:

9 FEBRUARY 2015

PLACE:

SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 26 October 2014, the applicant filed an application for extension of time and leave to appeal.  It was necessary for the applicant to seek an extension of time as the application for leave to appeal was filed more than 28 days after the decision of the Federal Circuit Court.  That was an interlocutory decision and an application for leave to appeal should have been filed within 14 days (Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 35.13(a) (the Rules)).  The applicant was notified by the Court on 28 January 2015 that the matter was to be listed at 2.15pm on 9 February 2015 before me.

  2. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister) has filed a written outline of submissions and they were served on the applicant by express post on 2 February 2015.  A covering letter was sent, accompanying the outline of submissions, stating that the matter was listed on 9 February 2015 at 2.15 pm before Bennett J.  The Minister also informed the applicant in that letter that, if he does not attend, the Minister will seek orders from the Court that the matter be dismissed and that the applicant pay the Minister’s legal costs for the proceedings. 

  3. No written submissions were filed on behalf of the applicant.  When the matter was called for hearing, the applicant did not appear.  The matter was called outside the Court and there was no appearance.  I adjourned the matter for a short period of time to enable the Minister’s solicitor to attempt to contact the applicant on the telephone number that he had given.  I am informed that the solicitor rang twice and, on each occasion, the number rang out.  There has still been no appearance by the applicant some 20 minutes after the matter was listed for hearing.

  4. The Minister seeks to have the matter dismissed pursuant to r 35.33 of the Rules in that the applicant was absent when his application was called on for hearing.

  5. In the circumstances it, it is appropriate to dismiss the application pursuant to r 35.33 of the Rules and the applicant should pay the Minister's costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bennett.

Associate:

Dated:        9 February 2015

Details
AGLC
SZTNW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 619
Case
[2015] FCA 619
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SZTNW brought an application against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in the Federal Court. The applicant sought an extension of time to lodge an appeal against a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had dismissed their application for review of a decision to cancel their visa. The Minister opposed the application on the grounds that it was frivolous and vexatious.

The court was required to determine whether the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal should be granted. In doing so, the court had to consider the criteria set out in Rule 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The court also needed to assess whether the application was frivolous or vexatious, as this would be a relevant factor in determining whether to grant leave to appeal.

The court found that the application was frivolous and vexatious, as the applicant had made numerous previous unsuccessful applications and appeals in relation to their visa. The court also found that the applicant had not provided any reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the appeal, and that the delay had caused prejudice to the Minister. As a result, the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed. The court ordered that the applicant pay the Minister's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed under r 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.

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.