FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZBPA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 182
SZBPA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1667 OF 2004
GYLES J
9 FEBRUARY 2005
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 1667 OF 2004 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZBPA APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
GYLES J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
9 FEBRUARY 2005 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.
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 1667 OF 2004 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZBPA APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
GYLES J |
|
DATE: |
9 FEBRUARY 2005 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application for leave to appeal. It is also expressed to be an application for the extension of time. The solicitor for the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs concedes that there is no need for an extension of time, so the matter is to be viewed only as an application for leave to appeal.
2 The application annexes a draft notice of appeal that the respondent contends does not isolate any appealable error in the judgment of the learned Federal Magistrate. This was put to me on the last occasion when the application was before me and, although I saw the merit of that submission, it occurred to me that there may be some possible arguments arising out of the conduct of the matter. Therefore, over the objection of the respondent, I adjourned the matter until today in order that the applicant might put his application in order. That has not been done. No further document has been filed and he is unable to advance his case orally today. That is hardly surprising as he is unrepresented.
3 The fact remains, however, that the application itself, the draft notice of appeal, the affidavit in support and all that has happened on the occasions the matter has been before the Court simply identify no appealable error in what the learned Federal Magistrate did. It is in those circumstances inevitable that the application must fail. The applicant implicitly recognises as much by saying that he was not able to arrange a solicitor. I should add that, although it is not my task to roam through the papers to find some point for the applicant, I am satisfied that there is nothing which has been identified which would amount to any appealable error. I therefore dismiss the application for leave to appeal and order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent.
|
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. |
Associate:
Dated: 7 March 2005
|
|
The Applicant appeared in person |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
A Markus |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Australian Government Solicitor |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
9 February 2005 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
9 February 2005 |
