Awadesh Group of Restaurants Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration

[2020] FCCA 2343

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AWADESH GROUP OF RESTAURANTS PTY LTD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2020] FCCA 2343

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – company not represented by a lawyer – absence of representative of company at hearing – proceedings stayed until further order.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.9.04, 13.03B(1)(a).

Applicant: AWADESH GROUP OF RESTAURANTS PTY LTD

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Numbers: BRG 370 of 2020 and BRG 371 of 2020

Judgment of: Judge Egan

Hearing date: 17 August 2020

Date of Last Submission: 17 August 2020

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 17 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms Allen of Sparke Helmore

Second Respondent: Submitting appearance save as to costs

ORDERS

1. The hearing of the application for review be stayed, until further order, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 13.03B(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (‘the Rules’) by reason of the applicant’s default in its compliance with the provisions of Rule 9.04 of the Rules.

2. Each party have liberty to apply on the giving of two (2) days’ notice, each to the other.

3. The costs of and incidental to the hearing today be reserved.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 370 of 2020 and BRG 371 of 2020

AWADESH GROUP OF RESTAURANTS PTY LTD

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. When this matter was called on for hearing today, a person by the name of Benapuria dialled into the telephone hearing. Mr Benapuria is associated with each of the companies in proceedings BRG370/2020 and BRG371/2020. 

2. Ms Allen, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the first respondent in each of the two matters.

3. Even though Mr Benapuria purported to appear by telephone, his line went dead during the course of the commencement of the hearing. The associate tried, on numerous occasions, to contact him after that happened, but the associate has advised the Court that Mr Benapuria’s nominated telephone number did not answer, and that Mr Benapuria was therefore unable to be contacted.

4. It is most unsatisfactory, in circumstances where complaints have been made by the first respondent as to the non-representation of the applicants to proceedings such as these, that people associated with such companies do not ensure that they are able to appropriately make submissions to the court. That would appear to be the case today. 

5. Without the court determining the question of whether the applicant companies ought to be granted leave to be represented by a non-lawyer or not, the court is nonetheless minded to stay the proceedings filed on behalf of each applicant company until further order. There is currently no application in a case filed on behalf of the first respondent for the proceedings to be dismissed. If the first respondent’s lawyers were to again correspond with the applicant companies in circumstances where the first respondent is minded to file an application for relevant orders in these matters, then, the court will, of course, hear and determine any such application in a case. It is not minded to do so until such time as an application in a case has been filed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Egan

Associate:

Date: 25 August 2020