FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBTQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 521

SZBTQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 426 OF 2005

MADGWICK J

27 APRIL 2005

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 426 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZBTQ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	27 APRIL 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $800.00.

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 426 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZBTQ

APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	27 APRIL 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Madgwick J:

1 This is an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of Federal Magistrate Driver given on 28 February 2005. His Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) on the basis that the initiating process filed by the applicant disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

2 Before this course was embarked upon, the applicant had been given an opportunity to file an amended application, which he did. Insofar as he complained of error on the part of the Tribunal, the errors alleged are entirely concerned with factual matters. As his Honour pointed out:

‘… the amended application asserts jurisdictional error but the particulars given are merely a challenge to the merits of the [Tribunal] decision. No legal error going to the jurisdiction of the [Tribunal] is asserted. From my reading of the [Tribunal] decision made on 1 September 2003 there was no jurisdictional error. It would follow that the decision of the [Tribunal] is a privative clause decision and on that basis the amended application is bound to fail.’

3 Before me, the applicant, although not assisted by an interpreter, spoke excellent English and well understood what I was putting to him. He was unable to suggest any other complaint other than that the Tribunal had got the facts of his case wrong. That alone is not sufficient to indicate any jurisdictional error and I would refuse leave to appeal because it seems to me there is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Federal Magistrate fell into error. Accordingly, the prospects of the appeal, if leave were given, are of insufficient moment to warrant leave being granted.

4 The application is dismissed and the applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent, assessed in the sum of $800.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated: 5 May 2005

Solicitor for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing:	27 April 2005

Date of Judgment:	27 April 2005

Top