FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDLQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1277
SZDLQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS and ANOR
NSD 543 OF 2006
BLACK CJ
1 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 543 OF 2006 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZDLQ APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
BLACKCJ |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
1 AUGUST 2006 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $1200.00.
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 WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 543 OF 2006 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZDLQ APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
BLACK CJ |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
1 AUGUST 2006 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
1 This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Nicholls FM dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal on the ground that the application was an abuse of process.
2 As the decision of Nicholls FM was interlocutory in nature, the applicant needs leave to appeal to this Court.
3 The applicant has challenged the Tribunal’s decision on a previous occasion in the Federal Magistrates Court and in this Court, and unsuccessfully sought special leave to appeal to the High Court. The history of those proceedings is outlined the reasons of Nicholls FM at [4].
4 The refusal of leave to appeal to the High Court should have been the end of the matter but the applicant started all over again to challenge the same decision, apparently on the advice of some person. In those circumstances, the Federal Magistrate was quite correct in finding that the second attempt to challenge the Tribunal’s decision was simply not permissible and was an abuse of process of the Court.
5 The applicant has not raised any matters of substance that point to an error on the part of Nicholls FM, in either his written submissions or in oral submissions at this hearing. I therefore have no option but to dismiss the application. I note that the documents filed by the applicant use language which I do not believe could possibly be his own. Some person is trying to assist the applicant but is in fact causing him more pain.
6 The applicant, and those advising him, do not seem to understand that a losing party must generally pay the other party’s costs unless there is a good reason for the Court to order otherwise. There is no reason why the ordinary rule should not apply here.
7 The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs fixed in the sum of $1200.
|
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black. |
Associate:
Dated: 26 September 2006
|
The Applicant appeared in person. |
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
D Watson |
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Australian Government Solicitor |
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
1 August 2006 |
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
1 August 2006 |
|
