Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">tribunal had regard to information from lonely planet guide in rejecting aspect of appellant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether failure to provide appellant with opportunity to comment upon information constituted breach of s 424a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether information "the reason, or a part of the reason" for affirming decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">point raised on appeal having previously been abandoned at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether leave to rely upon proposed ground should be granted words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">"the reason, or a part of the reason"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">s 424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">appointment of judicial officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">abolition of one set of inferior courts and substitution of another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">policy to appoint stipendiary magistrates of former courts as magistrates of new courts unless unfit for judicial office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">decision not to appoint former stipendiary magistrate set aside for failure to accord natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">reconsideration of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">change of appointment policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">applicants to be judged on merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">whether former stipendiary magistrate entitled to reconsideration of application on basis of former or current policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">local courts act 1982 (n.s.w.), s. 12.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">ground of appeal added by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">allegation of technical invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">effect of seeking new trial on different issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">limited public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.),s. 75a(6).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">unrepresented appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">difficulties encountered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">adverse findings as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">no appellable error  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">leave to raise new ground of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1267">refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 585">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 585">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 585">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 585">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 585">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 138">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 138">whether applicant should be granted extension of time pursuant to s.477 of the migration act 1958 (cth) to file a proceeding seeking constitutional writ relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 138">whether delay is satisfactorily explained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 138">whether applicant has any, or any reasonable, prospects of establishing jurisdictional error in the refugee review tribunal's decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1543">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1543">citizen of bangladesh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1543">right to enter and reside in singapore</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1543">chance of persecution not for a convention reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1543">refusal of refugee status   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1543">grounds of appeal different to those advanced before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1543">leave to raise new grounds refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1436">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1436">application for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1436">grounds not pressed before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1436">grounds sought to be advanced on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1436">leave to raise new grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1436">whether different considerations apply to the grant of leave in migration cases   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1436">grounds not pressed before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1436">grounds sought to be advanced on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 217">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 217">failure to identify grounds of appeal from decision of magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 217">standard form notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 217">lack of consistency in decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 217">no error in not resolving a claim not previously advanced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 217">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 99">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 99">court may have regard to reasons of tribunal in assessing whether section 424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth) engaged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 99">question of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 99">delegate considered evidence of similar protection visa claims made by other individuals from same region as appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 99">section 424a not engaged as tribunal did not rely on same information as delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">prejudgment administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">failure to provide transcript and recordings to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">appellant already possessed transcript and recordings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">inquisitional process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">tribunal not obliged to play recordings of previous hearings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">no breach evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">discretion to refuse evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">evidence relevant to issue in dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">discretion miscarried practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">whether to allow evidence outside time for filing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">need to adjourn final hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">case management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.16">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">principles of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.17">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">justice prevails over breach of court order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">application to raise ground of appeal abandoned below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">jurisdiction or discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">role of appellate court to correct error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">public law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">need for timely decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">certificates filed by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">inquiry initiated by tribunal unearthed opposing evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">certificates said to be " fake  forged "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">further inquiry required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 609">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 609">leave to raise new ground of appeal refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 609">attendance at hearing before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 609">no specification in notice of appeal of mandatory requirements said to have been not complied with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 502">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 502">where new grounds raised on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 502">whether it is appropriate to treat the federal court as a court at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 502">whether grounds raised have any merit. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 502">whether tribunal considered particular social group claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 502">where tribunal found no serious harm inflicted on the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 502">where tribunal made a finding on relocation adverse to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 502">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1267" id="cs0">Without any attempt to be exhaustive, when such a departure does arise the difficulties to be confronted include the following: the very fact that the appellant before the Court is unrepresented and the practical and legal difficulties confronting those who claim refugee status. Some claimants, it must be recognised, are " engaged in an often desperate battle for freedom, if not life itself " ( Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] HCA 14 ; (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 577 to 578 per Gummow and Hayne JJ) (" Abebe "); the general principle that a party, including an unrepresented party, is normally bound at the appeal stage by the manner in which a case is advanced for resolution at first instance (cf. University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481 at 483); the public interest in cases, particularly in this area of the law, being resolved in a timely manner ( Iyer v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 929 at [62] , [2001] FCA 929 ; 192 ALR 71 at 86); the fact that the Legislature has identified the Federal Magistrates Court as the primary court in which cases in this area are to be resolved and the potential for that legislative objective to be frustrated or undermined if the role of the Federal Court as an intermediate court of appeal was transformed into a de facto court of first instance ( SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 at [30] ); the potential for the Court to either so assist the unrepresented party that the other side is disadvantaged or --- and a consideration of equal importance --- that the Court may be seen to so assist the unrepresented party that the other represented party may see itself as being at a disadvantage ( Vaeula v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 147 at [59]); the potential for tension (if not conflict) in the role to be discharged by the legal representatives for the respondent Minister, a role somewhat curiously called the " model litigant " --- the tension being between assisting the Court and representing the litigious interests of the Minister; and the fact that an appellate court is denied the benefit of reasons for decision in respect to the new argument sought to be advanced for the first time on appeal. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 585" id="cs1">Ms Rayment indicated to the Court that the Minister is not prejudiced in cases where an extension of time is sought pursuant to s.477. However, an exception arises in cases of gross delay where the documents may have been destroyed. Prejudice cannot be the basis on which to grant an extension of time, especially as it is in the public interest to dispose of cases of this nature expeditiously: SZKMS v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 per Lander J at [29] ---[30]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 138" id="cs2">SZOBF v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2010] FMCA 138 (4 March 2010)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Magistrates Court of Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Federal Magistrates Court of Australia  2010  [2010] FMCA 138

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] SZOBF v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2010] FMCA 138 (4 March 2010)
Last Updated: 9 March 2010

 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 SZOBF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION  ANOR [2010] FMCA 138
 MIGRATION --- Whether applicant should be granted extension of time pursuant to s.477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to file a proceeding seeking constitutional writ relief --- whether delay is satisfactorily explained --- whether applicant has any, or any reasonable, prospects of establishing jurisdictional error in the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision. Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.417 ; 476A (2); 477 ; 477 (1); 477 (2); 477(3)
 SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499
 Iyer v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 929 ; (2001) 192 ALR 71
 M211 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCAFC 293 ; (2004) 212 ALR 520
 Daniel v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 21 ; (2004) 205 ALR 198
 NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No. 2) [2004] FCAFC 263 ; 219 ALR 27
 SZGUW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 321
 Appellant S395 of 2002 v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 71 ; (2003) 216 CLR 473
 NAHI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10
 Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630
 WACO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171 ; (2003) 131 FCR 511
 Appellant P119/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 230
 Applicant: SZOBF
 First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION  CITIZENSHIP
 Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
 File Number: SYG 2974 of 2009
 Judgment of: Emmett FM
 Hearing date: 23 February 2010
 Date of Last Submission: 23 February 2010
 Delivered at: Sydney
 Delivered on: 4 March 2010
 REPRESENTATION
 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P. Reynolds
 Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms M. Guo, Fragomen
 Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T. Reilly
 Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms N. Johnson, Sparke Helmore
 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
 COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
 SYDNEY
 SYG 2974 of 2009
 SZOBF
Applicant

And

 MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION  CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

 REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
 This is an application for an extension of time pursuant to s.477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (" the Act ") to file an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (" the Tribunal "), dated 10 December 2008.  In having regard to the prejudice and the public interest, I also have regard to the fact that the Applicant has had an opportunity to pursue a legal right in seeking judicial review of the Tribunal's decision record which, for all practical purposes, he has foregone. I also accept that the First Respondent has a legitimate interest in the timely disposal of applications for protection visas as does the public ( SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 at [29] - [30] ; Iyer v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 929 ; (2001) 192 ALR 71 , per Gyles J at 86). I also have regard to the fact that s.476A(3) states that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from this decision. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1543" id="cs3">This Court may permit new grounds to be raised on appeal which were not raised before the Federal Magistrates Court. But there are very real reasons why it should not too readily do so, including: the fact that the relevant jurisdiction conferred on this Court is an appellate jurisdiction; the fact that this Court, in exercising that appellate jurisdiction, is entitled to the not inconsiderable benefit of the reasons for decision of a Federal Magistrate in respect to the issues sought to be agitated by a party to the proceeding; the principle that a party who has had a case resolved against him should usually not be permitted on appeal to raise a completely new or different case to that previously advanced; the principle that to permit a whole new case to be run on appeal has the potential to undermine the appellate process by rendering the trial process almost irrelevant; the fact that there is a legitimate public interest in public law matters being resolved in a timely and efficient manner and that the Minister has a legitimate interest in the timely resolution of applications for protection visas; and the fact that the High Court, in the event that an application for special leave to appeal is granted, is entitled to the benefit of a decision at first instance on the arguments sought to be resolved and to this Court's reasons for decision in respect to the same issues on appeal. To pursue any other course is to shift to the High Court the appellate role which it is the responsibility of this Court to discharge.
These are but some of the matters that have been referred to in earlier decisions of this Court: e.g. Iyer v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 929 at [62] , [2001] FCA 929 ; 192 ALR 71 at 86 per Gyles J; SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 per Lander J; SZMRD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 598 per Spender J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1436" id="cs4">There is a very considerable public interest in all litigation being resolved as quickly and as expeditiously as the administration of justice permits. There is a recognised public interest in applications for refugee status being resolved in a timely manner and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Migration Act : Iyer v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 929 at [62] , [2001] FCA 929 ; 192 ALR 71 at 86 per Gyles J; SZKMS [2008] FCA 499 at [30] per Lander J.  In SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 , Lander J was confronted with an application for leave to amend a Notice of Appeal and an application to adduce further evidence, being the transcript of the proceeding before the Tribunal. In refusing leave to amend, His Honour referred to those principles relevant to the grant of leave to raise new grounds on appeal but further observed (in part):

 [21] Parliament has given the Federal Magistrates Court jurisdiction in relation to applications of this kind to the exclusion of this Court: s 476A of the Act. All of the issues which are sought to be ventilated should be addressed at the trial in that Court.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1345" id="cs5">In SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 , Lander J at [31] also considered the approach which a Court should take when grounds not raised before the Federal Magistrate are raised for the first time in the Federal Court on an appeal. His Honour made express reference to the fact that the mere fact that an appellant did not have legal representation in the Court below is not, by itself, a sufficient reason for the Court to grant leave for new grounds to be relied upon on appeal when the appellant gains legal representation: see [20] of SZKMS . His Honour concluded that it was necessary for the Court to at least consider the new grounds sought to be relied upon. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 857" id="cs6">The first ground of appeal asserts bias on the part of the Tribunal. That matter was not raised before the Federal Magistrate, and so her Honour's failure to consider that matter cannot amount to error on the part of the Federal Magistrate. That in itself is sufficient to dispose of that ground of appeal. This is an appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court and not from the Tribunal. In any event, there is simply nothing identified in the submissions of the appellant which could support that claim. There is nothing which has been pointed out to me, or from my reading of the materials in the Appeal Book, which suggests that the Tribunal did not approach its task with an open mind: Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507. Apart from the complaint of procedural fairness made to the Federal Magistrate, much of what the appellant said about the Tribunal's reasons indicates that he was really seeking to complain about the merits of the decision of the Tribunal, but it is not the role of the Federal Magistrates Court simply to review the merits of such decisions: Minister for Immigration  Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; (1996) 185 CLR 259. However, principally I reject that ground of appeal because it was not raised before the Federal Magistrates Court at all and so cannot show error by the Federal Magistrate: SZKMS v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 499. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 598" id="cs7">A problem similar to the present was considered by Lander J in SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 ( SZKMS ). In the case before his Honour, the appellant sought leave to amend the Notice of Appeal in accordance with a further Amended Notice of Appeal. They also sought leave to adduce further evidence on the appeal, being the transcript of the hearings before the Tribunal on 18 January and 14 February 2007. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 217" id="cs8">(Emphasis in original)

The same construction was given to s 430 by the then Chief Justice: [2001] HCA 30 at [10] , [2001] HCA 30 ; 206 CLR 323 at 331 to 332. Whatever uncertainty may have prevailed prior to Yusuf, notwithstanding the unambiguous terms of s 430, there now remains no uncertainty as to the proper construction of s 430 or the requirements imposed: eg. SZJOC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1342 at [20] per Graham J; SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 at [52] per Lander J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 99" id="cs9">The remaining five grounds were not raised before the Federal Magistrate, and the Minister objected to leave being granted to rely upon them for the first time on the appeal. In SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 at [18] --- [31], Lander J reviewed the authorities on the question of the grant of leave in these circumstances. His Honour was of the view that this court should not be made, de facto, the court of original jurisdiction when sitting on appeal. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1866" id="cs10">68 Allegations of bias impact on the integrity of the Tribunal, and should be carefully and fully considered. Undoubtedly an adjournment would have been necessary if the evidence was accepted. However, while the Federal Magistrates Court has an exceptionally busy case load, there was no indication by his Honour of case management issues impacting on the exercise of his discretion: see, eg, Black Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1623. There was no suggestion that if an adjournment were granted the first respondent would be prejudiced in the conventional way other than as to costs, although there is a public interest in hearing refugee matters expeditiously: see Sali v SPC Ltd [1993] HCA 47 ; (1993) 116 ALR 625 , 628-29; Bloch v Bloch [1981] HCA 56 ; (1981) 180 CLR 390 , 395-96; and SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2008) FCA 499 at [29] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1372" id="cs11">If it were not so the main arena for the settlement of disputes would move from the court of first instance to the appellate court, tending to reduce the proceedings in the former court to little more than a preliminary skirmish. The importance of litigants, especially in the present statutory context, raising all arguments in need of resolution in the Federal Magistrates Court cannot be underestimated. In SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 Lander J referred to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court being exercised by a single judge pursuant to s 25(1AA) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and continued:
 [24] The appellate process is to correct error. If a party is entitled to raise issues for the first time on appeal, the appeal court will become de facto the primary court. That is undesirable.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1379" id="cs12">7 It is necessary, in order to protect the integrity of the appellate jurisdiction, that parties be bound in the way in which they conduct an application for judicial review before the Federal Magistrates Court. On the other hand, before rejecting an application to raise a new ground for the first time on appeal, it will normally be incumbent upon the appellate court to determine whether the ground has any legal merit. The curious result is that, where an application to raise a new ground was not previously raised at first instance, the Court will need to consider the ground in determining whether or not it should consider the ground in substance (see generally SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499 , at [24] to [26] and [31]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 609" id="cs13">[40] To allow the appellant to articulate these grounds on appeal would be to allow the appellant to treat this Court as a Court at first instance. Such a course of action is unsatisfactory, not only for this Court but also for the High Court which would hear any application for special leave from this decision. It would put the High Court, as it were, in a position of hearing applications for special leave from a court of first instance: SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499. [41] However, authority seems to suggest that I need to consider whether the grounds have merit before I determine whether I should give leave for the appellant to raise the matters: VUAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 158. In VUAX the conclusion was reached that leave to argue a ground of appeal not raised before the primary judge should only be granted if it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so: [2004] FCAFC 158 at [46] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 502" id="cs14">40 To allow the appellant to articulate these grounds on appeal would be to allow the appellant to treat this Court as a Court at first instance. Such a course of action is unsatisfactory, not only for this Court but also for the High Court which would hear any application for special leave from this decision. It would put the High Court, as it were, in a position of hearing applications for special leave from a court of first instance: SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 499. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 27 Evidence on appeal</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 56 Security</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430 Refugee Review Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476A Limited jurisdiction of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 1337">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 1337">cross examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 1337">application to permit cross-examination by two counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 1337">courts discretion whether to permit application to cross-examine by two counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 1337">principles governing discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 1337">importance of continuity of counsel present during cross-examination to the exercise of the discretion to permit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 1337">importance of the nature of witness sought to be cross-examined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 1337">application to permit cross-examination of witness by two counsel allowed  acts cited:  decision:  i allow the application in the terms in which it was made, and grant leave to the defendants to further cross-examine mr hogarth by either mr officer qc or mr powell, on areas and materials previously not covered by the cross-examination of mr shand, but permitting further cross-examination on credit generally.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 350">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 350">application to the trial judge for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of that judge, refused</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 350" id="cs0">4 At the commencement of the hearing today, 5 March 2008, Mr Orlov alone appeared for the applicant. The Court was informed that Mr Crowe would not be available until 16 June 2008. No application was made to have the matter adjourned until his services could again be retained. Rather, an application was made to me as the trial Judge for leave to appeal from my judgment on the question of leave being granted to the applicant to cross-examine Mr Brendas by different counsel. The judgment has now been published and is identified as Canberra Residential Developments Pty Limited v Brendas (No 2) [2008] FCA 255. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 351" id="cs1">3 The sole basis upon which the application for leave to cross-examine by other counsel was made was that the applicant had no funds, or more accurately, the applicant's solicitors had no funds with which to pay senior counsel to appear. This morning an application was made for leave to appeal from the judgment of 4 March 2008 on that application ( Canberra Residential Developments Pty Limited v Brendas (No 2) [2008] FCA 255). That application was refused earlier this afternoon. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>