SZGGS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 378

SZGGS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 378

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's challenge to the delegate's decision would have no legal consequence after the Tribunal's review decision, there was no utility in granting leave, no sufficient doubt warranting leave, and no injustice in refusing leave. The applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, excluding costs of the 1 March 2006 appearance because his non-attendance then was through no fault of his own.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Migration Law Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court's Summary Dismissal of an Application to Review a Delegate's Decision
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']
['migration Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Law Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court's Summary Dismissal of an Application to Review a Delegate's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Magistrates Court's dismissal of the applicant's review proceeding" "Whether alleged errors in the delegate's assessment could provide utility in an appeal where the Refugee Review Tribunal decision was legally operative" "Whether the applicant's impecuniosity justified departing from the ordinary costs rule"]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's challenge to the delegate's decision would have no legal consequence after the Tribunal's review decision, there was no utility in granting leave, no sufficient doubt warranting leave, and no injustice in refusing leave. The applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, excluding costs of the 1 March 2006 appearance because his non-attendance then was through no fault of his own.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding excluding any amount in respect of the appearance on 1 March 2006."]