Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMLT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 616
SZMLT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 213 of 2009
RARES J
18 MAY 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 213 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMLT
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 18 MAY 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal is dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 213 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMLT
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE: 18 MAY 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT) 1 This is an application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal under O 52 r 15 of the Federal Court Rules. The applicant filed the application some six days later than he ought to have filed a notice of appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court refusing him constitutional writ relief: SZMLT v Minister for Immigration [2009] FMCA 134. The affidavit in support of the application for the extension of time offers no explanation for the failure of the applicant to file his notice of appeal in time. Rather, it simply asserts that the applicant understands the English and Bengali languages well. 2 When the matter was called on this morning the applicant said that he did not have a lawyer and had nothing to say. I pointed out to him that it was important for him to persuade the Court that there was some error in either the tribunal or the trial judge's decisions, so as to warrant the Court granting him relief. He again repeated that he nothing to say. 3 The bases on which the Court considers an application for an extension of time are well known: Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516 at 519-520 [3]-[4] per Brennan CJ and McHugh J at 540-541, [66 par 4] per Kirby J: Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 at 191-192 per Lockhart, Sheppard and Burchett JJ: see also SZAPG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 372. Under O 52 r 15(2), an applicant must satisfy the Court that there is a special reason why the appeal should be permitted to proceed, notwithstanding its having been filed after the expiry of the 21 days provided by the Rules. Thus, an applicant must show that there is some ground to depart from the general rule. 4 The applicant has put nothing before me to indicate why he failed to file his application in time, other than his lack of legal training or experience. Nonetheless, I have reviewed the decision of the tribunal, signed on 14 May 2008 and the reasons of the trial judge to discern whether, in all the circumstances, there is some basis on which it may be arguable that an injustice may have been done to the applicant by the tribunal having fallen into jurisdictional error and her Honour having failed to perceive that. However, I have not discerned any such error.
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