SZFGI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1007

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFGI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1007 SZFGI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs NSD 793 of 2005 EDMONDS J 17 JUNE 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 793 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZFGI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE OF ORDER: 17 JUNE 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs, fixed in the amount of $1,000. 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 793 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZFGI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE: 17 JUNE 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN EX TEMPORE (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT) 1 This is an application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia given on 15 April 2005. The applicant filed the application for extension of time on 20 May 2005 some 14 days after the time limited for the filing and serving of a notice of appeal. The application was supported by an affidavit of the applicant which gave no reason for the delay other than the statement "I filed the appeal the Federal Court of Australia within the time. I don't even know about my appeal out of time. Any further application should be accepted". 2 The applicant informed me this morning that the reason for the delay was because he was detained in special detention. However, he conceded that that detention first commenced on 16 May 2005, that is, after the period for filing and serving a notice of appeal had expired. On the other hand if that were the only consideration I have to take into account in deciding whether the time for filing and serving a notice of appeal should be extended, it seems to me that such an application should be acceded to because there is little prejudice on the other side. 3 However, having read the applicant's draft notice of appeal, in particular the grounds relied upon, it is clear that none of the grounds relied upon have any prospect of success on appeal. Moreover, having read the reasons for judgment of the Federal Magistrate below I am unable to discern in those reasons any basis or ground upon which an appeal might be successful. The Federal Magistrates Court carefully considered the applicant's contention as to why the decision of the Tribunal was unfair and should be reviewed and in particular analysed the three reasons put forward in support of that proposition. 4 I am unable to discern any error in the Federal Magistrates Court's process of reasoning and for that reason even if I was to grant the application for extension of time I am of the view that any appeal could not succeed. For those reasons the application is dismissed. 5 I will fix costs in the sum of $1000 to be paid by the applicant to the respondent.