SZDVU v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 832 (7 October 2005)

--

SZDVU v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 832 (7 October 2005)

Last Updated: 19 October 2005

[2005] HCATrans 832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S264 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDVU

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 7 OCTOBER 2005, AT 9.04 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: The applicant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. He arrived in Australia on 11 January 2004. On 9 March 2004 a delegate of the Minister refused his application for a protection visa. On 13 May 2004, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed that decision. On 5 April 2005, the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the applicant’s application for a review of the Tribunal decision. On 9 May 2005, the Federal Court dismissed an application to appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court.

In effect, the applicant complains that he was denied natural justice because he was not informed of the date of the Federal Court hearing of his case, although he casts his claim in terms of jurisdictional error. In her Honour’s reasons, Bennett J said that she was satisfied that the applicant had in fact been notified of the proceedings. In light of that finding, this ground cannot be sustained.

The applicant also claims that his application was not “considered formally” by the Federal Magistrates Court because “it was dismissed before the formal hearing date”. Lloyd-Jones FM dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 13.03(2)(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) for failure to comply with court orders. It is true that Rule 13.03(2)(b) provides for summary dismissal of a case and in this sense, it will not always require consideration of the substantive issues raised by the parties. The Federal Magistrates Court was authorised to make such an order and the applicant’s complaint in this connection does not reveal any error of law. However, Lloyd-Jones FM did in fact consider the applicant’s substantive claims and concluded that they “did not disclose any error on the part of the Tribunal in its decision making process.” The applicant has no prospect of success on this ground of appeal. Accordingly, the application must be dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application. I publish our joint reasons.

AT 9.05 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED