Applicant S 203 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1813

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S 203 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1813 APPLICANT S 203 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL and MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 2078 OF 2005 EDMONDS J 5 DECEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2078 OF 2005

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S 203 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE OF ORDER: 5 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal be granted.

2. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay second respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $800.

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 2078 OF 2005

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S 203 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE: 5 DECEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN EX TEMPORE (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

Edmonds J: 1 This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of a judge of this Court dismissing an application for an order nisi principally on the ground that the applicant had not made out an arguable case that the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') is affected by jurisdictional error. I have had the opportunity of reading and considering (1) the reasons for judgment of Branson J dismissing the applicant's application; (2) the applicant's draft notice of appeal and, in particular, the grounds contained in the draft notice; and (3) an affidavit sworn by the applicant on 28 October 2005 in support of the application. 2 The applicant requires an extension of time to pursue this application. An extension is not opposed and I will therefore grant the applicant an extension of time. 3 The draft notice of appeal does not disclose any ground on which an appeal, if leave were granted, might be successful. My finding in this regard is predicated upon the terms of the draft notice and the matters which were agitated before the Tribunal on the hearing of the second application for review (there was an earlier application decided in 1994 which is not relevant for present purposes). The matters agitated on the hearing of the second application as summarised by her Honour do not raise any jurisdictional error and the grounds set out in the draft notice of appeal take the matter no further. The same applies to the matters referred to in [3] – [6] of the applicant's supporting affidavit. 4 In these circumstances, I am of a view that her Honour's decision is not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of leave and, having regard to the fact that the applicant has been granted two opportunities in the past to agitate his case before the Tribunal, I am further satisfied that no substantial injustice is occasioned to the applicant by the refusal of leave. I therefore dismiss the application with costs. 5 I will fix the costs which the applicant must pay the second respondent in the sum of $800.