SZGIE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1539

SZGIE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1539

The draft notice of appeal and affidavit identified no error in the RRT decision or in Federal Magistrate Smith's judgment. The earlier proceedings had comprehensively determined the applicant's challenge to the RRT decision, making the further proceeding doomed to fail by estoppel principles. Federal Magistrate Smith's decision was not attended by doubt and there would be no injustice in refusing leave, so leave to appeal was refused. Given the repeated, abusive nature of the proceedings and prior notice that indemnity costs would be sought, indemnity costs fixed at $1,200 were warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with indemnity costs fixed at $1,200.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'leave to Appeal' 'res Judicata' 'issue Estoppel' 'anshun Estoppel' 'indemnity Costs']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'leave to Appeal' 'res Judicata' 'issue Estoppel' 'anshun Estoppel' 'indemnity 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Federal Magistrate Smith's interlocutory orders dismissing the judicial review application." "Whether the applicant's further challenge to the RRT decision was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel or Anshun estoppel." 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The draft notice of appeal and affidavit identified no error in the RRT decision or in Federal Magistrate Smith's judgment. The earlier proceedings had comprehensively determined the applicant's challenge to the RRT decision, making the further proceeding doomed to fail by estoppel principles. Federal Magistrate Smith's decision was not attended by doubt and there would be no injustice in refusing leave, so leave to appeal was refused. Given the repeated, abusive nature of the proceedings and prior notice that indemnity costs would be sought, indemnity costs fixed at $1,200 were warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with indemnity costs fixed at $1,200.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is refused.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs, on an indemnity basis pursuant to Order 62 Rule 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules, fixed in the amount of $1,200.00."]