SZBPS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 362

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBPS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 362 MIGRATION – further proceedings by way of purported review notwithstanding multiplicity of unsuccessful applications arising out of essentially the same circumstances – whether previous decision interlocutory Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 24(1)(d), 24(1A) and 25(2)(a) Hall v Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423 followed Dai v Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman [2000] FCA 717 followed SZBPS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 363 OF 2005 CONTI J 4 APRIL 2006 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2363 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZBPS

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: CONTI J

DATE OF ORDER: 4 APRIL 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of $2000. 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 2363 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZBPS

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: CONTI J

DATE: 4 APRIL 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for leave to appeal from the decision of Federal Magistrate Smith given on 24 November 2005, whereby his Honour found that the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('RRT') earlier made to the Federal Magistrates Court constituted an abuse of process. The applicant appeared in person, assisted by an interpreter. 2 The purposed grounds for appeal appearing in the draft notice of appeal attached to the application for leave originally filed on 28 November 2005 were stated as follows: '1. The Honourable Federal Magistrates Court erred in law in determining whether this matter was reviewable in the Federal Magistrates Court. 2. The Honourable Court breached the procedural fairness by dismissing the matter in my absence. 3. The Honourable court failed to determine that the delegate made jurisdictional error in its notification. 4. I will provide more details later.' 3 At the commencement of the hearing of the precent proceedings, the appellant sought to file in Court a purported amended notice of appeal which contained a sole ground as follows: 'The RRT has breached s 424A.' The practical course for me to adopt, at least because the applicant was unrepresented, was to accept and consider the amended notice of appeal.