FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZHQB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 604 SZHQB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 186 of 2006 MADGWICK J 10 MAY 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 186 OF 2006 BETWEEN: SZHQB APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: MADGWICK J DATE OF ORDER: 10 MAY 2006 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $3000. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 186 OF 2006 BETWEEN: SZHQB APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: MADGWICK J DATE: 10 MAY 2006 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett given on 17 January 2006 whereby his Honour declined to order judicial review of a decision adverse to the appellant given by the Refugee Review Tribunal last year. 2 The appellant failed to appear. There seems to be no reason not to hear and determine the appeal. 3 His Honour dealt with the two arguments that were put before him and rejected them. The Notice of Appeal to this Court does not question his Honour's reasoning in any way. The grounds of appeal are as follows: '(1) The respondent failed to file and serve certain documents as ordered by the court. (2) The respondent did not file "Notice of Appearance" until after the hearing.' 4 As the first respondent points out, it is not apparent from the Notice of Appeal nor from the supporting affidavit what the applicant is referring to when she refers to 'certain documents'. There is no evidence to support the allegation or to suggest any prejudice to the appellant from any such failure by the respondents. There is also no evidence to support the assertion that the Notice of Appearance was filed out of time. The assertion appears contrary to the facts as apparent to the Court and again there is no suggestion of any prejudice to the appellant from any such default by the respondents. 5 There is nothing in Scarlett FM's reasons which suggests that his Honour did not have jurisdiction to find as he did and there is no warrant for me to embark on a unilateral examination of the correctness of his reasoning. I do not mean by that to suggest that I necessarily entertain any doubts about it. What is known of the case and the appellant's conduct does not impel me to research the matter more closely. 6 The appeal will be dismissed with costs, assessed in the sum of $3000. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. Associate: Dated: 23 May 2006 Counsel for the Appellant: There was no appearance for the appellant Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Meltz Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 10 May 2006 Date of Judgment: 10 May 2006