SZBME v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1739

SZBME v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1739

Although the application was only about eight days out of time and the applicant gave an explanation for the delay, the proposed appeal did not show any error of law or sufficient argument that the Federal Magistrate's judgment was erroneous. The grounds had already been dealt with correctly and in detail, including the claim about release of the applicant's name. The application for an extension of time was therefore dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Federal Court Application Seeking Extension of Time to Appeal From a Federal Magistrates Court Judgment Dismissing Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'sur Place Claim']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'sur Place Claim']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for an Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Federal Court Application Seeking Extension of Time to Appeal From a Federal Magistrates Court Judgment Dismissing Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended to file and serve a notice of appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court judgment.' 'Whether the proposed appeal showed any substance or error of law in the Federal Magistrates Court judgment.' "Whether the Tribunal's disclosure of the applicant's name and date of birth gave rise to a sur place claim." "Whether the Tribunal failed to act bona fide or in good faith, misunderstood the applicant's case, or failed to consider important aspects of it."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the application was only about eight days out of time and the applicant gave an explanation for the delay, the proposed appeal did not show any error of law or sufficient argument that the Federal Magistrate's judgment was erroneous. The grounds had already been dealt with correctly and in detail, including the claim about release of the applicant's name. The application for an extension of time was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs." 'The amount of costs be fixed and assessed, pursuant to Order 63 Rule 4 of the Federal Court Rules, at $2000.']