SZCKL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 648
No basis has been made out for any of the grounds advanced by the applicants. No sufficient doubt is raised with respect to the decision of the Federal Magistrate or the Tribunal. Any appeal would be futile and substantial injustice would not result if leave were refused. Leave to appeal should be refused.
- Parties
- First Applicant: SZCKL; Second Applicant: SZCKM; Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 May 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Protection Visas, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SZCKL
First Applicant
SZCKM
Second Applicant
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment should be granted
- 2 Whether there was any reviewable error by the Tribunal or the Federal Magistrate
- 3 Whether the Tribunal denied natural justice or failed to consider relevant claims
Ratio Decidendi
No basis has been made out for any of the grounds advanced by the applicants. No sufficient doubt is raised with respect to the decision of the Federal Magistrate or the Tribunal. Any appeal would be futile and substantial injustice would not result if leave were refused. Leave to appeal should be refused.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
- The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment