SZALG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 939
Because the Refugee Review Tribunal decision was a privative clause decision and the appellant identified no proper ground of appeal, no error by the Federal Magistrate, and no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal, there was no basis on which the appeal could succeed.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 July 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From a Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing an Application for Constitutional Writs and Ancillary Relief in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision / Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['refugee Review Tribunal' 'privative Clause Decision' 'jurisdictional Error' 'constitutional Writs']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing an Application for Constitutional Writs and Ancillary Relief in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision / Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the application for constitutional writs and ancillary relief' 'Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in exercising its powers']
Ratio Decidendi
Because the Refugee Review Tribunal decision was a privative clause decision and the appellant identified no proper ground of appeal, no error by the Federal Magistrate, and no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal, there was no basis on which the appeal could succeed.
Court Disposition
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['The appeal is dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZALG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 939 SZALG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 827 of 2004 WHITLAM J SYDNEY 14 JULY 2004
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 827 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZALG
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER: 14 JULY 2004
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 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 N 827 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZALG
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: WHITLAM J
DATE: 14 JULY 2004
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for constitutional writs and ancillary relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 15 November 2002. The background to the proceeding is fully explained in the reasons for judgment of the Federal Magistrate: see SZALG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 289. 2 The Federal Magistrate correctly approached the application before him on the basis that the challenge could only succeed if there was a jurisdictional error involved in the exercise of the Tribunal's powers. The decision of the Tribunal is a privative clause decision under s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 and is not susceptible to challenge unless jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal is found. The Federal Magistrate was unable to find any jurisdictional error. The notice of appeal contains no proper grounds of appeal. The appellant has not addressed the reasons for decision of the Federal Magistrate at all, and he has not submitted that there was any error made by the Federal Magistrate in reaching that conclusion. Further, the appellant has not submitted that there was any jurisdictional error at all on the part of the Tribunal. No ground of appeal is, therefore, suggested upon which this appeal could possibly succeed. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.
Associate: Dated: 19 July 2004 The appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the respondent: Andras Markus of the Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing: 14 July 2004
Date of judgment: 14 July 2004