FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Giza v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] FCA 1391 Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Giza v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] FCA 1234 and Giza v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] FCA 1433 File number: VID 1362 of 2017 Judge: DAVIES J Date of judgment: 7 September 2018 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal decision of single judge sitting in appellate jurisdiction – whether Court has jurisdiction to hear appeal – application dismissed Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Date of hearing: 7 September 2018 Registry: Victoria Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr N Nguyen Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore ORDERS VID 1362 of 2017 BETWEEN: RICHARD GIZA Applicant AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Respondent JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 7 sEPTEMBER 2018 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal filed on 13 December 2017 be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DAVIES J: 1 On 13 December 2017, the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal from two judgments, Giza v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] FCA 1234 and Giza v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] FCA 1433. In each of those cases, Pagone J was sitting as a judge in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court in relation to an application for leave to appeal procedural orders of a single judge of this Court: see s 25(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). 2 As the present application for leave to appeal is an application for leave to appeal a decision of a judge exercising the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the application for leave is not competent. This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal, or to hear an application for leave to appeal, from a decision of the appellate court: see s 24(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). 3 The applicant should pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal. The application should not have been made by Mr Giza as it was an application that this Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain, and costs should follow the event in the usual way. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Davies. Associate: Dated: 11 September 2018