FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZEKZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 117 SZEKZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 1829 of 2004 BRANSON J 16 FEBRUARY 2005 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1829 of 2004 BETWEEN: SZEKZ APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: BRANSON J DATE OF ORDER: 16 FEBRUARY 2005 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed at $1500. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1829 of 2004 BETWEEN: SZEKZ APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: BRANSON J DATE: 16 FEBRUARY 2005 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 By a notice of appeal filed on 6 December 2004 the applicant purported to appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court that was in fact not delivered until 22 December 2004. The explanation for the early filing of the notice of appeal would appear to arise from the fact that the hearing of the applicant's application to the Federal Magistrates Court took place on 2 December 2004. Presumably the applicant left the hearing with the knowledge that his application would not be successful. 2 On 22 December 2004, Lloyd-Jones FM formally dismissed the applicant's application to the Federal Magistrates Court as an abuse of process. His Honour's judgment was for that reason interlocutory. The applicant requires leave to appeal from it. On 8 February 2005 I ordered that the purported notice of appeal be treated as an application for leave to appeal and an application for an extension of time within which to file and serve an application for leave to appeal. Because of the premature filing of the purported notice of appeal I intended that order to deem the purported notice of appeal to have been filed on that day. That order should be corrected by the adding of the words 'dated 8 February 2005' after the words 'treated as an application'. I order that it be so corrected. 3 The history of the applicant's endeavours to obtain a visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is summarised in a chronology prepared by the respondent. That chronology will be annexed to and form part of these reasons for judgment. 4 The applicant has suggested that the chronology may not be complete. The applicant has told me that he was part of a class action in the High Court. The respondent has no record of the applicant being involved in a class action. I am willing to assume the accuracy of what the applicant has put to me but it does not, I think, bear in his favour on this application. 5 As the chronology records, the applicant applied in July 1998 for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal by which a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant him a protection visa was affirmed. That application was heard and dismissed with costs by Finn J on 26 November 1999 (see [1999] FCA 1729). An appeal against the decision of Finn J was discontinued by the applicant on 12 May 2000. 6 The grounds of review relied upon before Finn J were identical to those relied upon in the applicant's later application to the Federal Magistrates Court, and identical also to those upon which the applicant now claims to be aggrieved by a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court. 7 The learned Federal Magistrate concluded that it would be an abuse of the Court's process if the applicant were allowed to litigate anew the case determined by Finn J and in respect of which an appeal was discontinued. The learned Federal Magistrate also took into account the possibility that the applicant, who is in detention for breach of visa conditions, may have been seeking to extend his stay in this country by taking advantage of the delay ordinarily experienced in obtaining hearing dates for migration cases in the Federal Magistrates Court. His Honour noted that Finn J had pointed out in his judgment that the Tribunal's decision adverse to the applicant turned significantly on its view of the applicant's credit and that there was material before the Tribunal on which it could form that view. 8 The appeal which the applicant wishes to run against the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court has, in my view, no reasonable prospects of success. The interests of justice do not require that the applicant be given another opportunity to seek review of the decision of the Tribunal on the very grounds relied upon unsuccessfully before Finn J. For this reason the application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal is granted but the application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court is dismissed. 9 The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $1500. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs and annexure are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson. Associate: Dated: 21 February 2005 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person. Counsel for the Respondent: B Rayment Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 16 February 2005 Date of Judgment: 16 February 2005 FILED INCHAMBERS DATE: 11/2/05 SZEKZ Applicant V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS Respondent CHRONOLOGY BACKGROUND Applicant born in China 7 March 1972 Applicant arrived in Australia 29 November 1994 DIM IA Application for protection visa lodged 30 August 1995 Delegate's decision 29 April 1997 RRT Application for review lodged 27 May 1997 RRT hearing 9 April 1998 RRT decision dated 10 June 1998 FEDERAL COURT - AG58 OF 1998 Application for an order of review lodged 16 July 1998 Orders of Finn J dismissing application with costs 26 November 1999 FULL FEDERAL COURT - A104 OF 1999 Notice of appeal lodged 17 December 1999 Notice of discontinuance filed 12 May 2000 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT - SYG2872 OF 2004 Application for judicial review lodged 20 September 2004 Directions hearing 1 October 2004 Notice of objection to competency filed 8 October 2004 Court book filed and served 11 October 2004 Orders of Lloyd-Jones FM dismissing application as 2 December 2004 an abuse of process, with indemnity costs FULL FEDERAL COURT - NSD1829 OF 2004 Notice of appeal lodged 6 December 2004 Directions hearing 8 February 2005 Scheduled hearing of application for leave to appeal 16 February 2005 NZJ\NZJ\DSYD\16932213\1