SZEAH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 904

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEAH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 904 SZEAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 836 of 2005 BRANSON J 21 JUNE 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 836 of 2005

BETWEEN: SZEAH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 21 JUNE 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 836 of 2005

BETWEEN: SZEAH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 21 JUNE 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant has applied for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court delivered on 10 May 2005. The applicant had sought judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') to affirm a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa. Lloyd-Jones FM upheld an application of the respondent to dismiss the application for judicial review for failure to comply with orders of the Federal Magistrates Court. His Honour's judgment was interlocutory. Accordingly, the applicant requires leave of the Court or a Judge to appeal from it (s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)). 2 The broad principles governing when leave to appeal will be granted are found in numerous judgments of the Court, but may be traced back to Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397. In that case the Full Court adopted the tests previously set out by the Supreme Court of Victoria, namely: