SBKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1906

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SBKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1906 SBKC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS No S 286 of 2005 FINN J ADELAIDE 19 DECEMBER 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 286 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SBKC

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant be refused leave to appeal from a judgment of Mansfield J on 30 September 2005. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 286 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SBKC

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE: 19 DECEMBER 2005

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have already made orders refusing the applicant leave to appeal from a judgment of Mansfield J given on 30 September 2005. The applicant has failed to attend the hearing of this application notwithstanding he has clearly been provided both with notice of the date and place of hearing and of the submissions that were to be put by the respondent. He has failed to comply with a direction that he file written submissions. The Court, in his absence, has proceeded to hear this matter and make the order I noted at the outset. 2 The principles to be applied in determining whether to grant leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision are well established. The court having regard to whether in all the circumstances the decision is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant it being re-considered by the Full Court and whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused supposing the decision to be wrong: see Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397. 3 On 30 September 2005 his Honour made orders including the following in this, one of many proceedings brought by the applicant in this Court: (1) The application of the applicant for an adjournment of the Notice of Motion of the respondent dated 1 September 2005 be refused (that motion was one for summary dismissal of the application).