AJO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2018] FCA 203
•20 February 2018
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AJO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 203
Appeal from: AJO15 v Minister for Immigration & Ors [2017] FCCA 2547 File number: NSD 1508 of 2017 Judge: BESANKO J Date of judgment: 20 February 2018 Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.75 Date of hearing: 20 February 2018 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms B Rayment Solicitor for the First Respondents: Sparke Helmore Lawyers Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents: The Second and Third Respondents entered a submitting notice, save as to costs ORDERS
NSD 1508 of 2017 BETWEEN: AJO15
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
Second Respondent
MILAN OZEGOVIC, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 FEBRUARY 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The Appellant pay the First Respondent’s costs, to be assessed in default of agreement
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BESANKO J:
I am satisfied that the Appellant had notice of the hearing fixed for today. The Appellant has not appeared. I think it is appropriate to make an order under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
I refer to the email from the Court to the parties on 28 December 2017 and the letter from the solicitors for the First Respondent to the Appellant dated 12 February 2018, both of which will be retained on the Court file. I also refer to the information provided to the Court by Ms Rayment about the attempt to contact the Appellant. That information is as follows: the interpreter called the Appellant on the number in the Notice of Appeal, [appellant’s mobile telephone number], and the phone did not answer but went direct to voice message, so there has been no contact with the Appellant during the short adjournment.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko. Associate:
Dated: 1 March 2018
0
0
1