Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZEFT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1215 SZEFT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 513 OF 2005 STONE J 31 AUGUST 2005 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 513 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZEFT
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: STONE J
DATE OF ORDER: 31 AUGUST 2005
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appellant's notice of motion be dismissed; 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs in the amount of $500. 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 513 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZEFT
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: STONE J
DATE: 31 AUGUST 2005
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 1 April 2005, the appellant filed a notice of appeal in this Court from the judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 16 March 2005. His Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('Tribunal') made on 1 July 2004 affirming the decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse the appellant a protection visa.
Background 2 On 20 April 2005, the proceedings came before the Court for directions. The appellant appeared and consented to orders setting the matter down for hearing at 2.15pm on 24 June 2005. For reasons that are immaterial for present purposes, the proceedings were ultimately listed for hearing on 27 June 2005. On 26 June 2005, the appellant made an application for an adjournment of the hearing on account of illness. The appellant attached to his application for an adjournment a medical certificate that stated that the appellant was not fit to travel between 20 June 2005 to 20 July 2005. 3 By letter dated 29 June 2005, the Court wrote to the parties informing them that the proceedings were now to be heard at 2.15pm on 2 August 2005. The letter was sent by registered mail and a 'Delivery Confirmation – Advice Receipt' indicates that this letter was delivered to the appellant on 7 July 2005 at his address for service. 4 Initially the appeal was brought by the appellant and his wife, formerly the second appellant. However, the wife's claims depended on those of her husband and she made no independent claims for refugee protection under the Convention. 5 On 2 August 2005, the appellant and his wife failed to appear at the hearing. With leave, counsel for the first respondent filed and read an affidavit of Ms Angela Louise Radich, the solicitor with carriage of the matter for the first respondent, in which she stated her instructions were that on 17 March 2005, the appellant's wife left the country. Annexed to this affidavit was a print out from the first respondent's database of the appellant's wife's movement details. On the basis of this evidence, I was satisfied that the appellant's wife, at this stage the second appellant, had departed Australia. 6 In the circumstances, I made the following orders: '1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent to this appeal. 2. The appeal be dismissed. 3. There be no order as to costs in relation to the second appellant. 4. The first appellant pay the first respondent's costs in the amount of $3,500.' These orders were entered on 9 August 2005.
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