Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases

1 When this appeal was called on for hearing the appellant was absent. Mr Tredrea, counsel for the respondent, has sought an order pursuant to O 52 r 38A of the Federal Court Rules that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

2 The Court considers it appropriate to make the order sought by Mr Tredrea.

3 There can be no doubt that the appellant was aware that his appeal was listed for hearing this morning. The appellant has sent to the Court registry a standard form certificate of sickness for employment purposes. The Court is aware that the appellant has been advised by a registry officer that if he wishes the hearing of his appeal to be adjourned he must attend the Court, or arrange for someone to attend on his behalf, to apply for and justify an adjournment.

SHLB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

SHLB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 144 (13 May 2004)
Last Updated: 26 May 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


SHLB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCAFC 144
































SHLB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS


S 810 of 2003





BRANSON, FINN AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
13 MAY 2004
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 810 of 2003


ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT


BETWEEN: SHLB
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: BRANSON, FINN AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 13 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE


THE COURT ORDERS THAT:


1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 810 of 2003


ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT


BETWEEN: SHLB
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT


JUDGES: BRANSON, FINN AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE: 13 MAY 2004
PLACE: ADELAIDE


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

1 When this appeal was called on for hearing the appellant was absent. Mr Tredrea, counsel for the respondent, has sought an order pursuant to O 52 r 38A of the Federal Court Rules that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

2 The Court considers it appropriate to make the order sought by Mr Tredrea.

3 There can be no doubt that the appellant was aware that his appeal was listed for hearing this morning. The appellant has sent to the Court registry a standard form certificate of sickness for employment purposes. The Court is aware that the appellant has been advised by a registry officer that if he wishes the hearing of his appeal to be adjourned he must attend the Court, or arrange for someone to attend on his behalf, to apply for and justify an adjournment.

4 Further, the order against which this appeal is brought is an order made by Selway J dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. An application has already been made to Mansfield J for an order reinstating the application the subject of the order made by Selway J. In considering that application, Mansfield J gave careful consideration to the grounds that the appellant relies upon for the purposes of this appeal. Mansfield J concluded his consideration of the application before him by stating in SHLB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 254 at [32]-[33]:

�Accordingly, I have come to the view that there is simply no arguable basis upon which it could be said that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error in the conduct of its review. By reason of that conclusion, I do not think there is any basis for reaching the view that, by virtue of the way in which the applicant�s claim came to be dismissed, any injustice was caused to him. I think his claim, whether he had complied with the directions or not, was bound to fail. There is nothing before me which indicates that there was any prospect at all of demonstrating jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

In those circumstances, in my discretion, I decline to exercise the power (which I have assumed is available to me) to set aside the orders made on 3 October 2003 and to reinstate the application in the court. ....�

5 The appeal is dismissed with costs.




I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Branson, Finn and Finkelstein.



Associate:

Dated: 26 May 2004



Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear.



Counsel for the Respondent: K Tredrea



Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore



Date of Hearing: 13 May 2004



Date of Judgment: 13 May 2004
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia