FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZAVG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1767 SZAVG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2187 of 2005 WILCOX J 2 DECEMBER 2005 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2187 OF 2005 BETWEEN: SZAVG APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND: FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: WILCOX J DATE OF ORDER: 2 DECEMBER 2005 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1 The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2 The applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed at $600.00. 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 2187 OF 2005 BETWEEN: SZAVG APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND: FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: WILCOX J DATE: 2 DECEMBER 2005 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 3 This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones given on 8 November 2005 summarily dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which was handed down on 3 June 2003. 4 The applicant has previously sought judicial review of this decision. His first application was dismissed in the Federal Magistrates Court because of his failure to appear on no less than three occasions. He then sought, in this Court, an extension of time and leave to appeal. After a hearing on 9 December 2003, Stone J dismissed those applications. The applicant then filed an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. However, he failed to prosecute the application and, in due course, a Deputy Registrar of the High Court certified that the application was deemed abandoned. 5 On 15 August 2005, more than two years after the decision of the Tribunal, the applicant sought to start again. In my view the magistrate was correct to hold that the matter should not be allowed to be relitigated. 6 When the matter was first before the Federal Magistrates Court the applicant had the benefit of legal advice, provided to him free of charge through the panel system. However, even today, he is unable to identify any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. He has wasted a lot of Court time and resources and should not be allowed to waste any more. 7 The magistrate was clearly correct. The application for leave to appeal will be dismissed. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox. Associate: Dated: 8 December 2005 The Applicant appeared in person. Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr R White of Sparke Helmore The Solicitor for the Second Respondent filed a submitting appearance Date of Hearing: 2 December 2005 Date of Judgment: 2 December 2005