Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDNN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 784
SZDNN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 564 of 2005 SACKVILLE J 14 JUNE 2005 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 564 OF 2005
BETWEEN: SZDNN
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL
AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER: 14 JUNE 2005
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's 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 NSD 564 OF 2005
BETWEEN: SZDNN
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL
AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE: 14 JUNE 2005
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court delivered ex tempore on 23 March 2005. That Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('RRT') handed down on 15 April 2004. The RRT had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent ('the Minister') to refuse the appellant's application for a protection visa. The appeal has been heard by a single Judge in consequence of a direction by the Chief Justice of this Court. 2 The notice of appeal simply asserts that the Magistrate had erred: 'by not finding that the [RRT] had made a jurisdictional error in reaching the conclusion that the Appellant is not entitled to [a] protection visa'. The vagueness of the notice of appeal can be explained on the basis that the appellant, at the time the appeal was filed, did not have a copy of the judgment of the Magistrates Court. 3 At the directions hearing held on 13 May 2005, the appellant was directed to file and serve an amended notice of appeal giving full particulars of each ground of appeal relied on. The appellant was also directed to file and serve written submissions in advance of the hearing. The appellant filed an amended notice of appeal, but has not filed any written submissions.
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