SZNFR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 851

SZNFR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 851

The application was filed seven days outside the 21 day period and no adequate explanation for the delay was provided. In any event, neither the Federal Magistrate's reasons nor the proposed Notice of Appeal disclosed any basis on which an appeal would have prospects of success or sufficient doubt about the Federal Magistrate's decision. Justice did not require dispensing with compliance with O 52 r 5(2), and leave to appeal would also be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Leave to Appeal and for Dispensation From Compliance With Filing Time Limit / Federal Court Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Federal Magistrates Court Dismissal, Filed Out of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed; dispensation from compliance with the filing time limit refused; leave to appeal refused; Applicant ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Decision' 'federal Court Rules']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Decision' 'federal Court Rules']

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

Migration Application for Leave to Appeal and for Dispensation From Compliance With Filing Time Limit / Federal Court Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Federal Magistrates Court Dismissal, Filed Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether compliance with O 52 r 5(2) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) should be dispensed with where the application for leave to appeal was filed seven days out of time.' "Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Magistrates Court's interlocutory dismissal under r 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)." "Whether the Federal Magistrate's decision or the proposed grounds of appeal disclosed legal error or sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was filed seven days outside the 21 day period and no adequate explanation for the delay was provided. In any event, neither the Federal Magistrate's reasons nor the proposed Notice of Appeal disclosed any basis on which an appeal would have prospects of success or sufficient doubt about the Federal Magistrate's decision. Justice did not require dispensing with compliance with O 52 r 5(2), and leave to appeal would also be refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; dispensation from compliance with the filing time limit refused; leave to appeal refused; Applicant ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The Application for Leave to Appeal as filed on 20 May 2009 is dismissed.' "The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent's costs."]