SZFIN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 889 (17 June 2005)

Last Updated: 30 June 2005

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFIN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 889

SZFIN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

NSD 822 of 2005

EDMONDS J

17 JUNE 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 822 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZFIN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 JUNE 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,200 on a party/party basis.

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 822 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZFIN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EDMONDS J
DATE:	17 JUNE 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN EX TEMPORE
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

1 This is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal. In support of that application the applicant has filed and served an affidavit affirmed 24 May 2005. The judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of which the extension of time to appeal is sought was delivered on 22 April 2005 and the applicant filed the application for extension of time on 26 May 2005, some 13 days late.

2 The applicant is unrepresented and currently in detention. He has proffered his isolation in detention and his inability to have access to legal representation as reasons for his delay. Moreover, there does not seem to be any reason why or any basis upon which the Minister would suffer prejudice as a result of the delay. If that were the only consideration then I might be minded to grant the application. However, the substance of the draft grounds of appeal which accompanied the application effectively seek a merits review of the Tribunal decision.

3 Having read the Federal Magistrate's reasons for judgment I am satisfied that each of the grounds which the applicant put forward in his application to that court were properly dealt with. The material which the applicant has filed in this court does not disclose any arguable ground of appeal nor does one appear from the Federal Magistrates Court judgment. In those circumstances, I am of the view that the application should be refused since any appeal would be futile.

4 The respondent asks that I make a fixed costs order. I will make the order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1200.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edmonds.

Associate:

Dated: 30 June 2005

The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	17 June 2005
Date of Judgment:	17 June 2005