FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDXW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 129

SZDXW V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 1664 OF 2004

MADGWICK J

21 FEBRUARY 2005

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1664 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	SZDXW APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 FEBRUARY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the amount 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	N 1664 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:

SZDXW

APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	21 FEBRUARY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Madgwick J:

1 This is an appeal from the judgment of Federal Magistrate Barnes in the Federal Magistrates Court given on 29 October 2004. Her Honour upheld an objection to the competency of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) adverse to the appellant given on 8 October 2002.

2 The learned Magistrate, having considered the material before her herself, because the appellant was self-represented, held that there was no jurisdictional error apparent on the material before her. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal was a privative clause decision within s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and, as the application had not been lodged within 28 days of notification of the decision, the notice of objection to competency based on that fact was upheld.

3 The appellant again appears unrepresented. His grounds of appeal in his amended notice of appeal are not very helpful as to specifics. He invited this Court to review the papers before the Federal Magistrates Court and the decision of that Court, and if any error of law were found, to give him relief accordingly.

4 Regrettably for him, I can see no error of law. Indeed, I think the learned Federal Magistrate was right for the reasons that she gave.

5 Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed with costs, assessed in the sum of $2,000.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated: 25 February 2005

Solicitor for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing:	21 February 2005

Date of Judgment:	21 February 2005

Top