SZDQU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous [2005] FCA 82 (8 February 2005)

SZDQU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous
Affairs [2005] FCA 82

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 25(2B)(ba), 25(2B)(bb)(ii).

SZDQU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 6 of 2005

CONTI J
8 FEBRUARY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 06 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZDQU APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 FEBRUARY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $600.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 06 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZDQU APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE:	8 FEBRUARY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

1 In this matter a notice of appeal was filed on 4 January 2005 from the whole of the judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett on 17 December 2004.

2 The appellant's name has been called outside and it is apparent that the appellant is not present in the courtroom or precincts of the court.

3 Attached to the notice of appeal was a direction that the hearing in the nature of a directions hearing would take place today on 8 February 2005 at 4.20pm.

4 The notice of appeal, I might observe, does not on the face of it contain material prima facie suggestive of a viable ground of appeal. It is couched in generalities and does not refer to material facts in any particularity at all.

5 The application of the solicitor for the respondent is that the appeal be struck out pursuant to either section 25(2B) paragraph (ba) or paragraph (bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

6 In those circumstances I grant the application of the respondent Minister and I dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure of the appellant to attend a hearing relating to the appeal and otherwise on the basis I have already indicated, namely, that the notice of appeal does not purport to demonstrate any viable ground of appeal.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Conti.

Appellant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore

Date of Hearing:	8 February 2005

Date of Judgment:	8 February 2005