SZULS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 799

SZULS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 799

The applicant was notified of the hearing, including by correspondence to his address for service and by telephone with interpreter assistance, but failed to appear. His explanation for the 15-day delay was not acceptable, he made no attempt to prosecute the application, and he filed no submissions or oral argument. On review of the Tribunal decision and the primary judge's reasons, the Court was satisfied that he had not identified an arguable case of jurisdictional error or appellable error. The application was therefore dismissed under r 35.33(1)(a)(i).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal and for Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application From Federal Circuit Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; second respondent's name changed; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'failure to Appear' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'failure to Appear' 'jurisdictional Error']

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 Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal and for Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application From Federal Circuit Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal.' 'Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal from an interlocutory Federal Circuit Court judgment.' 'Whether the applicant identified an arguable case of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or appellable error by the primary judge.' 'Whether the application should be dismissed because the applicant failed to appear.' 'Whether the name of the second respondent should be changed to Administrative Appeals Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was notified of the hearing, including by correspondence to his address for service and by telephone with interpreter assistance, but failed to appear. His explanation for the 15-day delay was not acceptable, he made no attempt to prosecute the application, and he filed no submissions or oral argument. On review of the Tribunal decision and the primary judge's reasons, the Court was satisfied that he had not identified an arguable case of jurisdictional error or appellable error. The application was therefore dismissed under r 35.33(1)(a)(i).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; second respondent's name changed; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.

Orders

  • ['The name of the second respondent be changed so as to read "Administrative Appeals Tribunal".' 'The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs, as agreed or taxed."]