SZHJE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2007] FCA 1037

SZHJE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2007] FCA 1037

The Court refused to set aside the orders because the appeal on 13 June 2007 was not dismissed for non-appearance but was decided on the merits after considering the appellant's grounds of appeal and written submissions, and the appellant did not show any misapprehension as to facts or law, accident, oversight, injustice, or further matter justifying reopening or setting aside the decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Orders Made in an Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Application Filed 19 June 2007 Seeking to Set Aside Orders Made on 13 June 2007 in SZHJE V Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 904
Outcome
Application dismissed; appellant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $500.
Legal Topics
['failure to Appear' 'setting Aside Orders' 'reopening Judgments or Orders' 'protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal']
['practice and Procedure' 'migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['failure to Appear' 'setting Aside Orders' 'reopening Judgments or Orders' 'protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal']

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

Application to Set Aside Orders Made in an Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Application Filed 19 June 2007 Seeking to Set Aside Orders Made on 13 June 2007 in SZHJE V Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 904

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the orders made on 13 June 2007 should be set aside because the appellant did not receive notice of the hearing and did not attend.' 'Whether the appeal on 13 June 2007 was dismissed for non-appearance or was decided on the merits of the material before the Court.' 'Whether there was any misapprehension as to facts or law, accident, oversight, injustice, or other basis to reopen or set aside the orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to set aside the orders because the appeal on 13 June 2007 was not dismissed for non-appearance but was decided on the merits after considering the appellant's grounds of appeal and written submissions, and the appellant did not show any misapprehension as to facts or law, accident, oversight, injustice, or further matter justifying reopening or setting aside the decision.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; appellant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $500.

Orders

  • ['The application filed 19 June 2007 be dismissed.' 'The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent to be fixed in the sum of $500.']