Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKTS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1852
SZKTS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1648 OF 2007
MADGWICK J
14 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1648 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZKTS
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MADGWICK J DATE OF ORDER: 14 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $2,000. 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 1648 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZKTS
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE: 14 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court whereby Scarlett FM dismissed an application for judicial review of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") as incompetent because out of time under s 477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). 2 The applicant said in his application to the Federal Magistrates Court that he had received notification of the Tribunal's decision in March of 1997 and this must be correct because, as counsel for the respondent Minister points out, he applied to the Minister under s 417 of the Act in that year. 3 Following difficulties in relation to the administration of the Act the Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth) had the effect that a person in the position of the appellant might possibly be allowed 84 days from 1 December 2005, notwithstanding the massive delay until then. 4 The appellant was still well and truly out of time and the Federal Magistrates Court had no jurisdiction under s 477, as his Honour held.
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