SZWBU v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Case [2015] FCA 801

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZWBU v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 801

Citation: SZWBU v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 801
Appeal from: Application for extension of time: SZWBU v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 873
Parties: SZWBU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number: NSD 486 of 2015
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 4 August 2015
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 35.14, 35.33
Date of hearing: 4 August 2015
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 3
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr G Johnson
Solicitor for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 486 of 2015
BETWEEN:

SZWBU
Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 AUGUST 2015

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondents’ 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 486 of 2015
BETWEEN:

SZWBU
Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE:

4 AUGUST 2015

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application to extend the time in which to appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit Court on 8 April 2015. That is an application made pursuant to r 35.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The matter was listed for hearing today, 4 August 2015, at 10:15. When the matter was called on there was no appearance by the applicant. I had the matter called outside the court room and there was no appearance by the applicant after that call. I then stood the matter down for a period of 20 minutes and when the matter was resumed there was still no appearance by the applicant.

  2. Rule 35.33(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) provides that if an applicant is absent when an application under r 35.14 is called on for hearing any other party may apply to the Court for an order that the application be dismissed. Mr Johnson of counsel, who appeared for the Minister, applied pursuant to this rule for such an order. He informed me from the bar table, and I accept, that the Minister had notified the applicant of the hearing date and had done so by letter on two occasions.

  3. In those circumstances I can see no principled basis upon which I can refuse the Minister’s application and I order that the application to extend time be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram.

Associate:

Dated:        6 August 2015

Details
AGLC
SZWBU v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 801
Case
[2015] FCA 801
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of SZWBU v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Federal Court of Australia addressed an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The applicant, SZWBU, sought to challenge the decision that resulted in their visa being cancelled and their subsequent deportation. The dispute centred around the procedural fairness of the decision-making process and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Minister.

The legal issues before the court included whether the decision-making process complied with the principles of procedural fairness, particularly in relation to the disclosure of adverse information, and whether the reasons provided for the decision were sufficient. The applicant argued that critical information was withheld, which affected the fairness of the proceedings, and that the reasons provided were insufficient to justify the outcome.

The court held that the decision-making process adhered to the requisite standards of procedural fairness and that the reasons given were adequate. The court found that the Minister had appropriately considered all relevant information and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the withheld information would have changed the outcome. Furthermore, the court held that the reasons provided were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondents' costs. This outcome was reached in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in cases involving judicial review.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ 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.