SZECD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1006
Given the short length of the delay, lack of legal representation for the applicant, and absence of significant prejudice to the respondent, the extension of time to file the appeal should be granted.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
- Outcome
- extension of time granted
- Legal Topics
- ['extension of Time' 'appeal Procedure']
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 / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to file an appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court.' 'Whether the delay in filing the appeal causes prejudice to the respondent.']
Ratio Decidendi
Given the short length of the delay, lack of legal representation for the applicant, and absence of significant prejudice to the respondent, the extension of time to file the appeal should be granted.
Court Disposition
extension of time granted
Orders
- ['Application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal be granted.' 'The notice of appeal filed with the present application stands as the notice of appeal unless amended by the applicant pursuant to Order 52 r 21.' 'No order as to costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZECD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1006 SZECD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs NSD 821 of 2005 EDMONDS J SYDNEY 16 JUNE 2005
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD821 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZECD
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER: 16 JUNE 2005
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal be granted.
2. The notice of appeal filed with the present application stand as the notice of appeal unless amended by the applicant pursuant to Order 52 r 21.
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 NSD821 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZECD
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE: 16 JUNE 2005
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN EXTEMPORE (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT) 1 This is an application for an extension of time to file an appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court delivered on 29 April 2005. The applicant filed the present application on 26 May 2005. The length of the delay is very short, some 5 or 6 days. Moreover, the applicant says that he was legally represented below but has not since been legally represented. Any prejudice the Minister would suffer by reason of the delay is not significant. 2 The applicant has filed a draft notice of appeal which is not particularised but which provides arguable grounds of appeal. The application was made within 8 days of the decision of the High Court in SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 162 and I am conscious that if the applicant is not allowed to appeal there may be matters which have been raised in that decision which he will not have the opportunity to agitate. 3 I will therefore grant the application for an extension of time. In the circumstances I will order that the draft notice of appeal which the applicant has filed stand as the notice of appeal unless amended by the applicant pursuant to Order 52 rule 21. I explained to the applicant that he should endeavour to obtain legal advice in relation to the draft notice with a view to providing proper particulars of the grounds. There will be no order as to costs. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edmonds.
Associate: Dated: 1 August 2005
The applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 16 June 2005
Date of Judgment: 16 June 2005