FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAUE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 856
NAUE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
nsd 549 of 2006
moore j
14 june 2006
sydney
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 549 OF 2006 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
NAUE Appellant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
MOORE J |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
14 JUNE 2006 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. If necessary,leave to appeal is refused.
2. The appeal be dismissed.
3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1,100.00.
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 |
NSD549 OF 2006 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
NAUE Appellant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
MOORE J |
|
DATE: |
14 JUNE 2006 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application seeking leave to appeal, or, rather, it purports to be an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 26 February 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal on 11 June 2003 on the basis that it disclosed no arguable case. It appears that, due to the nature of the Federal Magistrate's judgment, an application for leave to appeal would be required, but nothing turns on the fact that the appellant has sought to appeal in the absence of the grant of leave.
2 I say that because it is not apparent that the Federal Magistrate erred in giving the judgment he did. Judgment was given against the background in which an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision had been dismissed by this Court in February 2004, a subsequent appeal to a Full Court had been dismissed in May 2004, an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court had been deemed abandoned in February 2005 and a further application for special leave to appeal had been dismissed on 17 November 2005.
3 The appeal is doomed to fail. If leave be required, and I think it is, leave should be refused. Accordingly, I dismiss the application for leave, if leave is necessary, and dismiss the appeal. I order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs. I fix those costs in the sum of $1100.
|
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. |
Associate:
Dated: 13 July 2006
The Appellant appeared in person
|
Solicitor for the Applicant: |
Sparke Helmore |
|
Date of Hearing: |
14 June 2006 |
|
Date of Judgment: |
14 June 2006 |
