CTHFCA

SZUMT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] FCA 466

Federal Court of Australia|2015-05-13|Before: Edmonds J

At a glance

AI case summary

Result

defendant. The application for leave to appeal filed 19 February 2015 was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.

Key principles

An application for leave to appeal must comply with procedural requirements, including the filing and service of a draft notice of appeal that satisfies rr 36.01(1) and (2) of...
Non-compliance with procedural requirements for filing a draft notice of appeal means there are no grounds of appeal by reference to which the court can evaluate the utility of...
Where grounds of appeal are not properly particularised or identified, they cannot form the basis of a successful application for leave to appeal.
A ground of appeal that merely asserts the lower court 'got it wrong' without identifying specific jurisdictional error is insufficient to establish an arguable case for leave to...

Issues before the court

Whether the applicant complied with procedural requirements for filing an application for leave to appeal under the Federal Court Rules 2011
Whether the grounds of the application for leave to appeal had any prospect of success

Plain English Summary

The Federal Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal because the applicant failed to follow proper court procedures. The applicant had not filed the required draft notice of appeal as directed by the court rules and a specific direction from the Registrar. Without this document, the court could not properly assess whether the appeal had merit. Even if the court had looked at the substance of the appeal, the grounds were too vague—merely claiming the lower court 'got it wrong' without identifying specific legal errors. The court agreed with the Federal Circuit Court's earlier decision that there was no arguable case of jurisdictional error by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 8

Judgment (1 paragraphs)

[1]

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 13 May 2015, I dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal from the judgment and orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ("FCC"): SZUMT v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 257, dismissing, pursuant to r 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 ("FCC Rules"), an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT"). 2 I set out below my reasons for doing so. 3 First, the applicant did not file and serve a draft notice of appeal that complied with rr 36.01(1) and (2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 ("Rules") as required by r 35.12 (2)(d) of the Rules, nor as per direction [3] made by Registrar Morgan on 24 February 2015. 4 In consequence, there are no grounds of appeal by reference to which one can evaluate the utility of granting leave by reference to the criterion of the merit of the proposed appeal. 5 Second, even if one was to treat the grounds of the application for leave to appeal as being coterminous with the grounds of appeal, as the Minister's written outline of submissions do, the applicant's application for leave to appeal is not improved. 6 The first ground of the application for leave to appeal reads: The FM failed to consider that the Tribunal acted in a manifestly unreasonable way when dealing with the applicant claims and ignoring the aspect of persecution and harm in terms of Sec.91R of the Act. The Tribunal failed to observe the obligation amounted to a breach of Statutory Obligation. This amounts to no more than saying that the FCC got it wrong when it concluded at [38] of its reasons that the applicant had failed to establish any arguable case of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. In reaching this conclusion, the FCC considered each of the four grounds in the applicant's show cause application at [24] to [31] of its reasons, as well as the ground of bias at [32] to [36] of its reasons and the ground that the applicant was not afforded a fair opportunity before the Tribunal at [37] of its reasons, the latter two grounds being raised in the applicant's written submissions. In my view, the FCC did not get it wrong on any of the grounds raised. 7 The second ground of the application for leave to appeal reads: The learned Judge dismissed the application without considering the legal and factual errors contained in the decision of RRT. Apart from the fact that these alleged legal and factual errors in the RRT's decision are not identified, let alone particularised, I agree with the conclusion reached at [38] of the FCC's reasons. 8 In my view, neither of these grounds of the application for leave to appeal would have any prospect of success as grounds of appeal if I was to accede to the applicant's application. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edmonds.