SZFYI v MIMIA [2006] HCATrans 697 (14 December 2006)

--

SZFYI v MIMIA [2006] HCATrans 697 (14 December 2006)

Last Updated: 21 December 2006

[2006] HCATrans 697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S171 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZFYI

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2006, AT 9.19 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J: The applicant, a citizen of India, seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Edmonds J). By those orders, Edmonds J refused the applicant leave to appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court (Smith FM) dismissing as incompetent, the applicant’s application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) directed to a delegate of the Minister who had refused to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant had previously sought and obtained merits review of the delegate’s decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal but the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision. The applicant then twice sought judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court of the Tribunal’s decision. Each of the separate applications for judicial review failed at first instance and on appeal to the Federal Court of Australia and, in the earlier of the two matters, application was made for special leave to appeal to this Court, but refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented this application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

It is not necessary to consider whether an appeal to this Court against the orders of Edmonds J would be competent (Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 33(2)) or whether the particular basis upon which Smith FM acted is right.

It is not in the interests of justice generally, or in this particular case, that the litigation instituted by the applicant be further protracted. No point of general principle would conveniently fall for consideration by this Court if special leave were to be granted.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.21 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED