FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZJCS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1794 SZJCS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2294 OF 2006 MOORE J 20 DECEMBER 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2294 OF 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZJCS Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: MOORE J DATE OF ORDER: 20 DECEMBER 2006 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as second respondent. 2. The application be dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the first 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 2294 OF 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZJCS Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: MOORE J DATE: 20 DECEMBER 2006 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrate of 30 October 2006: see SZJCS v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 1982. The proceedings before the court involved an application for an order that the respondents show cause why a remedy should not issue pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 13 March 2003 and handed down on 3 April 2003. 2 The application was filed on 28 July 2006 in the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrate concluded that he had no jurisdiction to hear the matter having regard to when the application was filed. It appears to me his Honour was correct in reaching that conclusion. 3 The applicant now complains about the way in which the hearing proceeded in the Federal Magistrates Court. Whatever may have occurred at that hearing, I am satisfied that any appeal, were leave given, would ultimately be doomed to fail as the Federal Magistrates Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. 4 Accordingly, I propose to dismiss the application for leave to appeal and order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs. The process in this Court did not name the Tribunal as the second respondent. The Tribunal should be added as a second respondent and I so order. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore J. Associate: Dated: 20 December 2006 The Applicant appeared in person. Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 20 December 2006 Date of Judgment: 20 December 2006