FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZCRS v Minister For Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 673 SZCRS and SZCRT V THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 106 OF 2005 EDMONDS J 23 MAY 2005 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY 106 OF 2005 BETWEEN: SZCRS FIRST APPLICANT SZCRT SECOND APPLICANT AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: EDMONDS J DATE OF ORDER: 23 May 2005 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. the applicants pay the respondent's costs in the amount of $575.00. THE COURT DIRECTS THAT: 3. A copy of the transcript of the reasons for decision given ex tempore be placed on the court file. 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 NSD106 OF 2005 BETWEEN: SZCRS FIRST APPLICANT SZCRT SECOND APPLICANT AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: EDMONDS J DATE: 23 May 2005 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN EX TEMPORE (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT) 1 The First and Second Applicants in this matter are husband and wife. The applicant husband included his wife on his application for a protection visa. The substantive application for the visa was made by the husband and the proceedings in the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Magistrates Court were conducted on the basis that the matter concerns an application by the husband. I will therefore refer to the applicant husband and his wife as simply 'the applicant'. 2 This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application by the applicant on the ground that he had not fully complied with the order to file an amended application setting out the particulars upon which he relied. 3 The proceedings before me have been conducted on the basis that the judgment below is an interlocutory judgment, and I think the basis for that is sound. This requires an applicant for leave to appeal to make an application to the Court pursuant to Order 52 rule 10 of the Federal Court Rules, which governs appeals from interlocutory judgments of both this court and the Federal Magistrates Court. 4 In considering whether leave should be granted in such a case, the Full Court of this Court in Decor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397, adopted the principles in Niemann v Electronic Industries Ltd [1978] VR 431, and held that the court must be satisfied of the following when deciding whether to grant an applicant leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision: 1. Whether in all the circumstances, the decision is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered by the Full Court. 2. Whether substantial injustice would result if leave was refused, supposing the decision to be wrong. 5 First, in my considered view, the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court is not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered by the Full Court. Second, it seems to me that substantial injustice would not result if leave were refused because if leave were granted, it is my considered view that the appeal would inevitably fail. 6 For those reasons, I order that leave to appeal be refused with costs, and I direct that a copy of the transcript be placed with the court file. 7 I am requested to order that the costs order that I have made be fixed in the sum of $575. I make that order. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edmonds. Associate: Dated: 1 June 2005 The first applicant appeared in person The second applicant did not appear Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 23 May 2005 Date of Judgment: 23 May 2005