SZBDW & Ors v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 447 (29 August 2007)

Last Updated: 4 September 2007

[2007] HCATrans 447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S385 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZBDW

First Applicant

SZBDX

Second Applicant

SZBDY

Third Applicant

SZBDZ

Fourth Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 29 AUGUST 2007, AT 9.17 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

HAYNE J: The applicants are husband, wife and their two daughters. They were born in Bangladesh but claim to be stateless Biharis.

The applicants seek special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Gyles J) made in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Gyles J dismissed the applicants' appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court (Mowbray FM). The Federal Magistrate had dismissed the applicants' claim for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and associated relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas.

Because the applicants are unrepresented, the application falls to be determined under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

In the Federal Court, the applicants sought to raise a point not agitated in the Federal Magistrates Court. Gyles J refused the applicants leave to do that. One of the bases for that refusal was that the new point depended upon a question of fact not raised in the Federal Magistrates Court. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion reached by Gyles J that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the applicants should not be permitted to rely on the point which they sought to raise for the first time on appeal. And in the other respects which it is sought to challenge the decision of Gyles J, we are not persuaded that those conclusions are attended by doubt.

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 9.19 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED