SZEPZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 107

SZEPZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 107

There was no failure to comply with s 424A in relation to the Second Decision because, before that decision was made, the appellant had already been given particulars of the High Commission information by the Tribunal's letter of 9 April 2003, had been told why it was relevant, had been invited to comment, and had in fact commented on it. Section 424A did not require the differently constituted Tribunal to give the same information and invitation again after the Consent Orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Review of Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia From Orders of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing Constitutional Writ Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa Refusal' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'section 424 a of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'reconstitution of the Tribunal' 'consent Orders' 'constitutional Writ Relief']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa Refusal' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'section 424 a of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'reconstitution of the Tribunal' 'consent Orders' 'constitutional Writ Relief']

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

Migration Appeal Concerning Review of Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia From Orders of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing Constitutional Writ Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Magistrates Court had power to order that the matter be remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal differently constituted for reconsideration according to law.' 'Whether compliance by the Tribunal with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) before the first Tribunal decision satisfied s 424A for the purposes of a later decision after the first decision was set aside and the matter remitted.' 'Whether the second Tribunal failed to comply with s 424A by not again giving the appellant particulars of information received from the Australian High Commission and inviting comment.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no failure to comply with s 424A in relation to the Second Decision because, before that decision was made, the appellant had already been given particulars of the High Commission information by the Tribunal's letter of 9 April 2003, had been told why it was relevant, had been invited to comment, and had in fact commented on it. Section 424A did not require the differently constituted Tribunal to give the same information and invitation again after the Consent Orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]