SZTUL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1427

SZTUL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1427

The adjournment was refused because the applicant had already had sufficient opportunity to seek representation, had no identified definite prospect of representation at a future time, and absence of legal representation was not itself enough to adjourn a long-fixed hearing. Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds disclosed no reasonably arguable basis for appellate intervention: the first ground was merely factual, the second required considerable latitude to identify any ground, and even assuming a WZAPN-type point under s 91R(1)(b), it could not affect the result because s 91R(1) is cumulative and the Tribunal had clearly found no systemic discrimination by Sri Lankan...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Migration; Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Adjournment and Application for Leave to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for adjournment dismissed; application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs fixed at $3,641.00.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'litigant in Person' 'costs']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'litigant in Person' '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

Migration; Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Adjournment and Application for Leave to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing of the application for leave to appeal should be adjourned to allow the applicant further time to seek pro bono legal advice and representation.' "Whether the applicant had a reasonably arguable case sufficient to warrant leave to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his judicial review application." "Whether any arguable WZAPN-type error concerning s 91R(1)(b) of the Migration Act could affect the outcome given the Tribunal's finding of an absence of systemic discrimination."]

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the applicant had already had sufficient opportunity to seek representation, had no identified definite prospect of representation at a future time, and absence of legal representation was not itself enough to adjourn a long-fixed hearing. Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds disclosed no reasonably arguable basis for appellate intervention: the first ground was merely factual, the second required considerable latitude to identify any ground, and even assuming a WZAPN-type point under s 91R(1)(b), it could not affect the result because s 91R(1) is cumulative and the Tribunal had clearly found no systemic discrimination by Sri Lankan...

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment dismissed; application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs fixed at $3,641.00.

Orders

  • ['The Application for adjournment be dismissed.' 'The Application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'The Applicant pay costs of the First Respondent which are fixed in the amount of $3,641.00.']