Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZJVL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1645
SZJVL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1230 OF 2007
RARES J
24 OCTOBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1230 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJVL
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 24 OCTOBER 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 refused. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1,200. 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 1230 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJVL
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE: 24 OCTOBER 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT) 1 This is an application for an extension of time in which to file an application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court to dismiss a claim for constitutional writ relief directed to the Refugee Review Tribunal's refusal to grant the applicant a protection visa: SZJVL v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 864. 2 The application for an extension of time is supported by an affidavit which simply contains the name, address and occupation of the applicant and nothing at all in explanation for the delay. The draft notice of appeal contains no grounds at all. 3 Ordinarily the application could be summarily dismissed as transparently groundless. The failure to identify any reason for the delay or any case at all would be sufficient to show that this is not a proper case which should be allowed to proceed: Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516 at 519-520 [3]-[4] per Brennan CJ and McHugh J and 540 [66 par 4] per Kirby J. In that case, their Honours referred with approval to the way in which Lord Denning MR explained the approach of the Court to the grant of an extension of time in which to lodge an appeal in R v Secretary for the Home Department; Ex parte Mehta [1975] 1 WLR 1087 at 1091. His Lordship said that the Court required an outline of the case and would grant leave where it appeared to be one which was strong on the merits and which ought to be heard in fairness to the parties. A flimsy case, weak on the merits, would not be one in which an extension of time should be granted. 4 Because the applicant is self-represented I have made allowances to permit him to advance his arguments orally both in support of the application for an extension of time and in support of any appeal.
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