SZIHA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 168

SZIHA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 168

The applicant had not applied for the separate leave required by s 24(1A) to appeal from the interlocutory judgment, making the extension application futile. In any event, the proposed grounds disclosed no arguable error in Driver FM's decision or the Tribunal's decision, several grounds were insufficiently precise, challenges to Tribunal factual findings could not be considered, and the applicant demonstrated no prospect of success. Accordingly no special reasons existed to extend time under O 52 r 15(2).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time From an Interlocutory Judgment in a Migration Judicial Review Matter / Application Dismissed
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'interlocutory Judgment']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'interlocutory Judgment']

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 for Leave to Appeal Out of Time From an Interlocutory Judgment in a Migration Judicial Review Matter / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant required leave under s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court's interlocutory judgment." 'Whether special reasons existed under O 52 r 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules to permit the applicant to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time.' 'Whether the proposed grounds of appeal disclosed any arguable error or prospect of success.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had not applied for the separate leave required by s 24(1A) to appeal from the interlocutory judgment, making the extension application futile. In any event, the proposed grounds disclosed no arguable error in Driver FM's decision or the Tribunal's decision, several grounds were insufficiently precise, challenges to Tribunal factual findings could not be considered, and the applicant demonstrated no prospect of success. Accordingly no special reasons existed to extend time under O 52 r 15(2).

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent as agreed or taxed.']