SZWCH v Minister for Immigration
[2015] FCCA 1126
•1 May 2015
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZWCH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2015] FCCA 1126 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Tendering of evidence – whether the tendered document is inadmissible on the grounds of relevance. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958, s.476 |
| Applicant: | SZWCH |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION |
| File Number: | SYG 342 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Street |
| Hearing date: | 1 May 2015 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 1 May 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 1 May 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Bodisco |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Michaela Byers, Solicitor |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr Lloyd SC Ms Davidson |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The tender on the adjournment application be rejected.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT AT SYDNEY |
SYG 342 of 2015
| SZWCH |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an interlocutory application in a matter purportedly within the Court’s jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 in respect of which the applicant is seeking to advance an interlocutory application for an adjournment. In that adjournment application, the applicant seeks to tender a report dated 5 April 2014. That report is one in which it is conceded that the only material it provides is material expanding upon the fourth sentence of a letter dated 12 March 2014 that is annexed to an affidavit filed in the proceedings.
The first respondent objects to the tender on the grounds of relevance. I agree with the submissions of the first respondent that the document does not appear to be relevant in expanding upon the fourth sentence in the letter of 12 March, and I can see no relevance from the argument presented by Mr Bodisco from the bar table. I reject the tender on the adjournment application.
I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street
Associate:
Date: 5 May 2015
0
2