Applicant S1138 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1697

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1138 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1697 APPLICANT S1138 OF 2003 AND SZJLX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NSD 2283 OF 2006

MOORE J

6 DECEMBER 2006

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2283 OF 2006

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S1138 OF 2003

First Applicant

SZJLX

Second Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: MOORE J DATE OF ORDER: 6 DECEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an extension of time in which to appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicants pay the respondent's costs. 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 2283 OF 2006

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S1138 OF 2003

First Applicant

SZJLX

Second Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: MOORE J

DATE: 6 DECEMBER 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for an extension of time in which to appeal against a judgment of Sackville J given on 21 August 1998. In substance, his Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 24 November 1997 affirming a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal had rejected part of the claims advanced by the applicant, having regard to the similarities between a statutory declaration he had furnished in support of his application and what had been said in a statutory application by another applicant in earlier, unrelated proceedings before the Tribunal in support of that other application. 2 The essence of the applicant's case before Sackville J was whether the Tribunal had denied the applicant procedural fairness by, in effect, not putting to the applicant with sufficient clarity or detail its concerns about the potential similarities between the two statutory declarations. His Honour rejected that argument and found that there had been no denial of procedural fairness. Following the judgment of Sackville J, there was an earlier application for an extension of time in which to appeal. That application was dealt with by Tamberlin J in a judgment of 17 August 2004: see Applicant S1138 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1052. 3 It is probably the case that no further application for an extension of time can be made or, if made, must necessarily fail having regard to the judgment of Tamberlin J. However, it is sufficient for me to dispose of this application on the basis that no arguable error has been demonstrated in the approach of Sackville J, nor any adequate explanation given for the lengthy delay in seeking to appeal against his Honour's judgment. Accordingly, I propose to dismiss the application for an extension of time with costs and I so order. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore J.