SZGMZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1844

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGMZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1844

SZGMZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 2264 of 2005 WILCOX J 8 DECEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2264 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZGMZ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER: 8 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs fixed at $800.00. 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 2264 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZGMZ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE: 8 DECEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This is an application for leave to appeal against an order made by Smith FM on 10 October 2005. The application has no merit at all. 2 The applicant failed to appear in the Federal Magistrates Court for the hearing of an application for summary dismissal on 8 August 2005. Apparently he sent a medical certificate. The magistrate regarded the certificate as unsatisfactory. Notwithstanding that opinion, the magistrate adjourned the hearing until 10 October 2005 and directed that the applicant be informed that, if a further adjournment was sought on medical grounds, it must be supported by a medical report explaining his unfitness to attend a short hearing of one hour sitting down. 3 The magistrate was satisfied that a copy of that order was served on the applicant. Notwithstanding that, the applicant failed to attend on 10 October 2005. In his absence the magistrate made an order dismissing his substantive application with indemnity costs. Smith FM also made a direction that no further application for a review of the relevant decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal or of the delegate of the Minister be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court. 4 In relation to the last matter, it is relevant to note that the decision of the delegate was given as long ago as March 1999 and the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal on 3 May 2000. The applicant sought judicial review in this Court. His application was heard and dismissed by Stone J on 8 March 2001. Her Honour noted the lack of particularity in the grounds of review and commented that the applicant's problem was that the Tribunal did not believe him. The applicant did not appeal against her Honour's judgment. 5 Subsequently the applicant was joined in a class action in the High Court. Pursuant to a direction of Gaudron J, he filed his own application for an order nisi on 29 May 2003. However, he discontinued that proceeding on 22 January 2004 after it had been remitted to the Federal Court. 6 On 16 March 2004, the applicant then commenced a third judicial review proceeding by filing an application in the Federal Magistrates Court invoking s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The matter came before Barnes FM on 17 December 2004. The applicant did not appear. Barnes FM dismissed the substantive application. The applicant sought leave to appeal to this Court. His application for leave came before Hely J on 6 April 2005. The applicant failed to appear. His Honour dismissed the application. In his reasons, Hely J said the material filed by the applicant did not reveal any arguable case of error on the part of Barnes FM. 7 The applicant sought to appeal against the decision of Hely J. His application came before Bennett J on 13 May 2005. The application failed. 8 The applicant then commenced his fourth substantive judicial review application, being that which came before Smith FM in the circumstances earlier mentioned. 9 The applicant has consumed a significant amount of court time and resources in pursuing a claim which was dealt with finally, on its merits, some years ago. The applicant today said he wished to consult a barrister. However, it is over five years since the decision of the Tribunal. He has had ample time to get legal advice.