SZNZK v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2010] HCATrans 265 (12 October 2010)

Last Updated: 14 October 2010

[2010] HCATrans 265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S162 of 2010

B e t w e e n -

SZNZK

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for reinstatement

GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2010, AT 9.53 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

SZNZK appeared in person.

MS R. GRAYCAR: I appear for the first respondent. (instructed by Clayton Utz Lawyers)

HIS HONOUR: There is a submitting appearance for the second respondent.

MS GRAYCAR: Yes, your Honour.

THELAT QUASIM, sworn as interpreter.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

MS GRAYCAR: Your Honour, this was an application for special leave filed by the applicant on 22 July and, as you have mentioned, submitting appearance was filed by the second respondent on 29 July. On 19 August, the application was deemed to have been abandoned and the applicant was notified by the Registry on 24 August and the applicant now seeks, by summons filed on 31 August, to have that application reinstated. He has filed an affidavit also on 31 August, which we have - - -

HIS HONOUR: Just pardon me a minute. Yes, the summons was filed on 31 August.

MS GRAYCAR: With a supporting affidavit, to which we have no objection.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS GRAYCAR: For the reasons set out in written submissions that have been filed with this Court, the first respondent seeks to have that summons dismissed with costs.

HIS HONOUR: Justice Perram had some difficulties, did he not, with the way this matter had been handled below?

MS GRAYCAR: He did, your Honour. In the submission of the first respondent they were very comprehensively dealt with by him and he indicated that to the extent that the matter had been dealt with, “perhaps less than satisfactorily”, I think, was his phrase, by the delegate, that had been cured by the provision of a full merits review by the Tribunal and that had

been taken into account fully by both the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: A trouble is that the way the Act is structured this litigation does not get to a collegiate bench at any stage. I think the best outcome in all the circumstances is to give the applicant one last opportunity. If that opportunity is utilised, the matter will then go forward on the papers before a panel of the Justices. If it is not utilised within the time I am about to stipulate, that will be the end of the matter. Is that understood?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: The orders I will make are:

1. Upon condition that the applicant file and serve a draft notice of appeal and summary of argument within 28 days, then pursuant to rule 44.10.4, order that the special leave application be reinstated.
   
2. If the application is reinstated, direct that the special leave application proceed for disposition on the papers without a listing for hearing and that those papers include these orders made 12 October 2010 and the written submissions of the first respondent filed 8 October 2010.
   
3. Costs of the summons filed 31 August 2010 be costs of the special leave application.
   

Is that understood?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Very well. I make those orders in application No 4.

AT 10.02 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED