FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZAGF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 317
CORRIGENDUM
SZAGF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N2196 OF 2003
HILL J
26 MARCH 2004 (CORRIGENDUM 15 FEBRUARY 2005)
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY |
N2196 OF 2003 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZAGF APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
HILL J |
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
CORRIGENDUM
In the reasons for judgment of the Court dated 26 March 2004:
1 On page 12, paragraph 33, the two succeeding sentences beginning in line 13 should read: “Rather, it was used to test an argument not advanced by the Applicant but favourable to him. The Tribunal rejected the argument by relying on country information which suggested that the rule of law now applied in Yugoslavia (see p25 of the Tribunal’s reasons), meaning thereby that the Applicant would likely receive a fair trial there.”
|
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hill. |
Associate:
Dated: 15 February 2005
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZAGF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 317
CORRIGENDUM
SZAGF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N2196 OF 2003
HILL J
26 MARCH 2004 (CORRIGENDUM 15 FEBRUARY 2005)
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
N2196 OF 2003 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZAGF APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
HILL J |
|
DATE: |
26 MARCH 2004 (CORRIGENDUM 15 FEBRUARY 2005) |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
CORRIGENDUM
In the reasons for judgment of the Court dated 26 March 2004:
1. On page 12, paragraph 33, the two succeeding sentences beginning in line 13 should read: “Rather, it was used to test an argument not advanced by the Applicant but favourable to him. The Tribunal rejected the argument by relying on country information which suggested that the rule of law now applied in Yugoslavia (see p25 of the Tribunal’s reasons), meaning thereby that the Applicant would likely receive a fair trial there.”
|
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hill. |
Associate:
Dated: 15 February 2005
