SZDTU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1135

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDTU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1135 SZDTU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL No NSD 1040 of 2007

FINN J

2 AUGUST 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1040 OF 2007

BETWEEN: SZDTU

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: FINN J DATE OF ORDER: 2 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal be dismissed with 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 1040 OF 2007

BETWEEN: SZDTU

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE: 2 AUGUST 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 against a decision of a Federal Magistrate dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. Order 52 r 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules empowers a court or a judge "for special reasons" to give leave to file and serve a notice at any time. It is well accepted that the expression "special reasons" is intended to distinguish the case from the usual course according to which the time is 21 days. A special reason is a ground which takes the case out of the ordinary: see Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 at 195. The guiding principles relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion are well known: see generally the judgment of Wilcox J in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 at 348-349. 2 The background proposition against which applications to extend time are to be considered is that extensions are not to be granted unless it is proper to do so. Time limits have their purposes. Among the considerations of which account ought properly be taken in a case such as the present are whether there is some acceptable explanation for the delay and the merits of the application itself. In this case, the bona fides of the proposed appeal and the prime facie strength of the ground of appeal are of no little importance, as I will indicate.