SZHGO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 478

SZHGO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 478

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no error in the Federal Magistrate's decision summarily dismissing the application where the applicant sought to re-agitate substantially the same issues previously litigated in this Court and the High Court. The adjournment was refused because the medical evidence did not sufficiently justify non-attendance or an adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Immigration Application for Leave to Appeal / On Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia; Application for Leave to Appeal and Adjournment Application Determined
Outcome
The application for an adjournment was dismissed, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the first applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $846.00.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'summary Dismissal' 'res Judicata' 'issue Estoppel' 'anshun Estoppel' 'abuse of Process' 'adjournment' 'costs']
['immigration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'summary Dismissal' 'res Judicata' 'issue Estoppel' 'anshun Estoppel' 'abuse of Process' 'adjournment' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Immigration Application for Leave to Appeal / On Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia; Application for Leave to Appeal and Adjournment Application Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the Federal Magistrate's summary dismissal of the judicial review application." 'Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the application on grounds including res judicata, issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel and abuse of process.' 'Whether the hearing should be adjourned because the first applicant said he was too ill to attend.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no error in the Federal Magistrate's decision summarily dismissing the application where the applicant sought to re-agitate substantially the same issues previously litigated in this Court and the High Court. The adjournment was refused because the medical evidence did not sufficiently justify non-attendance or an adjournment.

Court Disposition

The application for an adjournment was dismissed, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the first applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $846.00.

Orders

  • ['The application for an adjournment be dismissed.' 'The application be dismissed.' "The first applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application." "The first respondent's costs be fixed in the sum of $846.00."]