AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Australia Transcripts

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> High Court of Australia Transcripts >> 2007 >> [2007] HCATrans 682

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Documents | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

SZBVM & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2007] HCATrans 682 (15 November 2007)

Last Updated: 26 November 2007

[2007] HCATrans 682


IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA


Office of the Registry
Sydney No S169 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZBVM

First Applicant

SZBVN

Second Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders
GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2007, AT 9.43 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicants, citizens of the Russian Federation, seek special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Tamberlin J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Tamberlin J dismissed the applicants' appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas.

The first applicant alleged that the Tribunal was obliged to invite her to comment on her husband's lack of corroboration of a particular in her case. The courts found that the Tribunal had sought that information. There was no breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by the Tribunal since the view the Tribunal might take in the absence of that evidence was not "information" within the meaning of s 424A, upon which she could comment.

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

The applicants' written submissions do not raise a question of principle of general public importance which would warrant consideration by this Court. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached in the courts below.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.45 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2007/682.html