Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAPF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 447
NAPF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 115 OF 2007
MOORE J
27 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 115 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: NAPF
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MOORE J DATE OF ORDER: 27 MARCH 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. If an extension of time or leave be necessary, an extension of time be refused and leave be refused. 2. The appeal otherwise be dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000. 4. The name of the first respondent be amended to "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship". 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 115 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: NAPF
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MOORE J
DATE: 27 MARCH 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is what purports to be an application for leave to appeal filed in this Court on 25 January 2007 against the judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 6 October 2005: see NAPF v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2005] FMCA 1584. The better view is that it should probably be an application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal. Ultimately, however, that distinction is, in the circumstances of this case, immaterial. The Federal Magistrate dismissed as an abuse of process an application filed in that Court on 28 July 2005. That application sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 20 March 2003. 2 Prior to the filing of the application on 28 July 2005 the appellant had unsuccessfully challenged the Tribunal's decision in proceedings both in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court. It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the application as an abuse of process. If it is necessary that time be extended or leave be given I would refuse to extend time and refuse leave to appeal and otherwise dismiss the appeal. 3 I order that those costs be fixed in the sum of $1000. The name of the first respondent be amended to read "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship". I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.
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