Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZATJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 168
SZATJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 1980 of 2003 WHITLAM J 17 FEBRUARY 2004 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1980 of 2003
ON APPEAL FROM A FEDERAL MAGISTRATE
BETWEEN: SZATJ
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL
AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER: 17 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1980 of 2003
ON APPEAL FROM A FEDERAL MAGISTRATE
BETWEEN: SZATJ
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL
AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: WHITLAM J
DATE: 17 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') made on 12 February 2003. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal from the decision of Barnes FM allege that the Tribunal: (a) made errors of law; (b) did not enquire into the matter properly; and (c) did not accept the appellant's documents. These grounds replicate those relied on in the application to the Federal Magistrates Court. They were treated by Barnes FM (at [8]) as giving rise to questions of jurisdictional error and denial of procedural fairness. 3 The application to the Federal Magistrates Court was filed more than 28 days after receipt of the Tribunal's decision. This prompted the respondent to file a notice of objection to the competency of the application. The relevant findings of fact made by Barnes FM touch on the competency of the appeal. The grounds of appeal do not challenge any of the findings of fact in the Court below on that question. Nor has the appellant taken issue with them in her address today.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate