SZEPL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 780

SZEPL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 780

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide particulars identifying any possible ground for relief from the Tribunal's decision, the second proceeding disclosed no basis on which relief could be granted, the primary judge made no error in dismissing the proceeding for non-compliance with directions, and any appeal would be bound to fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing a Migration Review Proceeding Summarily / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa Refusal' 'refugee Review Tribunal Decision' 'judicial Review' 'summary Dismissal' 'failure to Provide Particulars' 'leave to Appeal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['protection Visa Refusal' 'refugee Review Tribunal Decision' 'judicial Review' 'summary Dismissal' 'failure to Provide Particulars' 'leave to Appeal']

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 Leave to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing a Migration Review Proceeding Summarily / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court's summary dismissal of the applicant's proceeding." "Whether the applicant's second Federal Magistrates Court proceeding disclosed any possible basis for relief from the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision." 'Whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the proceeding for failure to comply with directions to furnish particulars of grounds of review.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide particulars identifying any possible ground for relief from the Tribunal's decision, the second proceeding disclosed no basis on which relief could be granted, the primary judge made no error in dismissing the proceeding for non-compliance with directions, and any appeal would be bound to fail.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $900."]