SZCKX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 526
The Federal Magistrate correctly found the Tribunal was functus officio and had no power to entertain a further application by the applicant; no error was identified to warrant leave to appeal.
- Parties
- Applicant: SZCKX; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Second Respondent: Refugee Review Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 April 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Decision
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Refugee Status Determination, Abuse of Process, Functus Officio, Leave to Appeal
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SZCKX
Applicant
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
First Respondent
Refugee Review Tribunal
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Federal Magistrate's decision dismissing the judicial review application was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant leave to appeal
- 2 Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider a second application by the applicant
- 3 Whether the applicant was denied natural justice or the proceeding was an abuse of process
Ratio Decidendi
The Federal Magistrate correctly found the Tribunal was functus officio and had no power to entertain a further application by the applicant; no error was identified to warrant leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application be dismissed.
- The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent.
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