FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

SZKJC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1285



 


 


 


 


SZKJC AND SZKJD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 1030 OF 2007

 

MADGWICK J

14 AUGUST 2007

SYDNEY



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1030 OF 2007

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

BETWEEN:

SZKJC

First Applicant

 

SZKJD

Second Applicant

 

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

 

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

 

 

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

 

1.                  The application be dismissed.

2.                  The applicants pay the first respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $1,200.00.


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

NSD 1030 OF 2007

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

BETWEEN:

SZKJC

First Applicant

 

SZKJD

Second Applicant

 

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

 

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

 

 

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE:

14 AUGUST 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR

1                     This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court.  The court below was hearing an application by the first respondent in the principal proceedings to dismiss an application by the present applicants for judicial review of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) because the application showed no arguable basis for the relief sought.

2                     The amended application for judicial review was in “template form,” garbled and, in parts, having ludicrously little connection, or none, with the case at hand.  Nevertheless Smith FM considered “the reasons and procedures of the tribunal.”  His Honour said that he could see no arguable jurisdictional error affecting its decision.

3                     Neither can I.

4                     His Honour’s decision is attended by insufficient doubt to warrant leave to appeal and leave will be refused with costs, assessed in the sum of $1200.

 

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:         20 August 2007



Counsel for the Applicant:

The applicant appeared in person

 

 

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Clayton Utz

 

 

Date of Hearing:

14 August 2007

 

 

Date of Judgment:

14 August 2007