Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZCYW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 451 SZCYW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 225 OF 2007
MOORE J
27 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 225 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZCYW
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. The application for an adjournment be refused. 2. The application for an extension of time be dismissed. 3. Leave to appeal be refused if leave be necessary. 4. The appeal otherwise be dismissed. 5. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000. 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 225 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZCYW
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 an application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal in respect of the decision of a Federal Magistrate of 25 November 2004: see SZCYW v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 878. The better view is probably that it should be an application for an extension of time to file and serve an application for leave to appeal that decision, but nothing turns on that. The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a second decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 27 May 1999 as an abuse of process. Her Honour also dismissed as incompetent an application for judicial review of the first decision of the Tribunal of 13 July 1998, that Tribunal decision having been earlier set aside by consent by the Federal Court. 2 The proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court were commenced on 11 March 2004. An application for an order of review of the second Tribunal decision had previously been dismissed by the Federal Court, an appeal from which decision was dismissed by the Full Court. In those circumstances, it is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in concluding that the proceedings were an abuse of process. Accordingly, any appeal against the Federal Magistrate's decision is deemed to fail. The application for an extension of time is dismissed and if necessary, leave is refused and the appeal is otherwise dismissed. 3 In so concluding, I am refusing an application for an adjournment which was effectively made by the applicant today. She stated that she needed more time to obtain legal assistance and legal advice for the proceedings in this Court. In the circumstances of this case, having regard to the history of the litigation, I do not consider that any unfairness attends the refusal of that application for adjournment. I order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000. 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