SZGRR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1814

SZGRR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1814

Leave to appeal was refused because the Federal Magistrate's decision disclosed no error and was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration, and because the applicant had already had opportunities to agitate judicial review of the Tribunal's decision and would suffer no substantial injustice if leave were refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court Summarily Dismissing Proceedings as an Abuse of Process
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'abuse of Process' 'summary Dismissal']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'abuse of Process' 'summary Dismissal']

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 From Interlocutory Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court Summarily Dismissing Proceedings as an Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Federal Magistrate's summary dismissal of the applicant's application as an abuse of process was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal." 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Federal Magistrate's decision disclosed no error and was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration, and because the applicant had already had opportunities to agitate judicial review of the Tribunal's decision and would suffer no substantial injustice if leave were refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1,500 with four months to pay."]