Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLAJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 282
SZLAJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2118 OF 2007
JESSUP J
22 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2118 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZLAJ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: JESSUP J
DATE OF ORDER: 22 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicants pay the costs of the respondent Minister. 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 2118 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZLAJ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: JESSUP J
DATE: 22 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 2 October 2007, acting pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules, the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") by which it confirmed a decision of the delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). 2 On 25 October 2007, the applicant filed in this court a purported Application for Leave to Appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrate. That application was slightly out of time, in which circumstances the applicant would require a dispensation pursuant to O 52 r 5(3) of the Rules of this court. When the matter was called on in court today, the applicant did not appear, and he has not since appeared. 3 I am satisfied that the applicant was appropriately notified of the hearing in court today. No reason for his absence appears in the material before the court; neither has any communication been received from him or on his behalf. Ms Hooper, who represents the respondent Minister, has asked for the Application for Leave to Appeal to be dismissed pursuant to O 35A r 2(1)(f) and/or pursuant to O 32 r 2(1)(c). Technically, I suppose I have to approach this as though the applicant is implicitly seeking a dispensation under O 52 r 5(3), but whether that be the correct approach or whether the matter is treated as an application for leave to appeal as such, manifestly, the submission that it should be dismissed for one or other of the grounds referred to by Ms Hooper is sound. 4 I propose therefore to order that the Application for Leave to Appeal be dismissed. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup.
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