SZVBK v Minister for Immigration Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2020] FCA 254

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZVBK v Minister for Immigration Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 254

Appeal from: SZVBK & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 387
File number: NSD 1656 of 2019
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 27 February 2020
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Cases cited: SZVBK v Minister for Immigration and Another [2015] FCCA 387
Date of hearing: 27 February 2020
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 6
Counsel for the Applicants: The Applicants did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms A Zinn of Mills Oakley
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs

ORDERS

NSD 1656 of 2019
BETWEEN:

SZVBK

First Applicant

SZVBL

Second Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MIDDLETON J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 FEBRUARY 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application for an extension of time be dismissed with costs.

2.The name of the first respondent be amended to read: “Minister for Immigration Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs”.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MIDDLETON J:

  1. This is an application seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made on 5 March 2015 in SZVBK v Minister for Immigration and Another [2015] FCCA 387.

  2. The matter was called on for hearing before me this morning and there was no appearance.  I am satisfied that the applicant knew of the place and time for the hearing and no satisfactory explanation has been given for a non-appearance. 

  3. Pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) (read in connection with s 25(2B)(a)) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the Court has power to make an order that the application be dismissed for the failure of the applicant to attend a hearing.

  4. This power is discretionary but I have no reason in the circumstances not to make an order dismissing the application for an extension of time.

  5. So the order I will make is the application for an extension of time be dismissed with costs. 

  6. I will also order that the name of the first respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs”.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Middleton.

Associate:

Dated:       3 March 2020

Details
AGLC
SZVBK v Minister for Immigration Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 254
Case
[2020] FCA 254
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SZVBK, an applicant for a visa, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant sought an extension of time to file their application for review and also challenged the legality of the decisions under review. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court had to decide two primary issues. The first was whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time to file their application for judicial review. The second was whether the decisions made by the Minister were legally sound. In addressing these issues, the court considered the statutory framework governing the Minister's decision-making powers, the rules of natural justice, and relevant case law.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any special circumstances warranting an extension of time. It held that the statutory time limits for seeking judicial review must be strictly observed. Furthermore, the court found that the Minister's decisions were not unlawful. It concluded that the Minister had exercised their discretion in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and that there was no error of law. The court also noted that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of procedural unfairness.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time and found that the decisions under review were lawful. The court ordered that the name of the first respondent be amended to correctly reflect the current title of the Minister.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Application for an extension of time be dismissed with costs.

2. The name of the first respondent be amended to read: “Minister for Immigration Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs”.

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.