Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZCEX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1010 SZCEX AND ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND ANOR NSD 955 OF 2006 RARES J 11 JULY 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 955 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZCEX
FIRST APPLICANT
SZCEY
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 11 JULY 2006
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs. 2. Costs be fixed in the sum of $1,200. 3. The applicant not file any further proceeding in this court seeking to challenge the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 27 November 2003 and handed down on 20 November 2003 or the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 25 February 2003 refusing to grant a protection visa without the leave of a Judge of this court. 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 WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 955 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZCEX
FIRST APPLICANT
SZCEY
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE: 11 JULY 2006
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT) 1 This matter was called outside the Court today. There was no appearance. The Court received at 10.19 am a letter from the first applicant dated today, saying that he had received the notice for hearing for today and asserting that he had not enough time to submit the papers because papers take some time to come from India and that was why he could not be ready by today. He asked for time to submit papers, said that he had no work rights and that is why he could not come to Sydney for his hearing and asked for the hearing to be on the phone. The second applicant has not appeared. Because they are husband and wife (see the reasons of the Refugee Review Tribunal at the first paragraph), I am satisfied that they are both aware of the hearing from the Court's letter to them fixing the hearing, dated 29 June 2006. 2 Pursuant to my powers under s 25(2)B(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the applicants have failed to attend the hearing, and I order that the application be dismissed for want of appearance. I order that the applicants pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1,200. Under the inherent power of the Court, I order that the applicants not file any further proceeding in this court seeking to challenge the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 27 November 2003 and handed down on 20 November 2003 or the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 25 February 2003 refusing to grant a protection visa without the leave of a Judge of this court. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate