MZYDA v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 1389 (24 November 2009)

Last Updated: 26 November 2009

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZYDA v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 1389

MZYDA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

VID 722 of 2009

GORDON J
24 NOVEMBER 2009
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 722 of 2009
GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	MZYDA Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GORDON J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 NOVEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appellant’s application for an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal is refused.
   

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 722 of 2009
GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	MZYDA Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GORDON J
DATE:	24 NOVEMBER 2009
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. An appeal against an order of Federal Magistrate Turner of 15 September 2009 was listed for hearing today before the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court. On the appeal being called for hearing, the appellant informed the Court that he sought time to retain the services of a lawyer to assist him in putting legal submissions in relation to the matters the subject of appeal. The application was made primarily on two bases: first, that the appellant required time to enable him to make application for a visa granting him work rights to enable him to earn an income to be able to retain and pay for the services of a lawyer; and secondly, because he was, he submitted, not in a position to make legal submissions himself. Mr Brown, who appeared for the first respondent, opposed the application. These reasons for judgment record why the application was refused.
2. First, the appeal was filed by the appellant. Secondly, on 13 October 2009, the first respondent’s solicitor had written to the appellant. That letter stated that proceedings in the Federal Court entail complex legal issues, and informed the appellant that he should contact a legal organisation urgently if he wanted legal advice or assistance with his appeal. The letter went on to identify four organisations which assist people in the position of the appellant to find lawyers who specialise in migration matters. The appellant informed the Court that he had contacted two of those organisations to seek assistance but they were unable to help him. Mr Brown also informed the Court that a letter in similar terms had been forwarded to the appellant at the time the matter was before the Federal Magistrate, being the decision the subject of appeal. That is of significance in terms of the present application for adjournment because the appellant appeared before the Federal Magistrate and put submissions to the Federal Magistrate at that time without the assistance of a lawyer.
3. Thirdly, any adjournment of the hearing of the appeal was unlikely to bring about a new hearing in the near future. As noted earlier, the appellant submitted he intended to apply for a visa granting him working rights from the Federal Government. That application would take a significant period of time. In fact, no application has been made by the appellant notwithstanding that the appellant has had notice not only of the hearing before the Federal Magistrate but also of this appeal for some period of time.
4. Given the nature of the appeal – that is, an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court and the need to identify legal error in the decision of the Federal Magistrate – and in light of the circumstances just outlined, the appellant’s application for an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal is refused.
   

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

Associate:

Dated: 24 November 2009

The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr Brown
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing:	24 November 2009
Date of Judgment:	24 November 2009