Barot & Sons Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs

[2019] FCCA 1622

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BAROT & SONS PTY LTD v MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR [2019] FCCA 1622

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Oral application for an adjournment – whether it is in the interests of the administration of justice to adjourn the matter – oral application for an adjournment refused.

Applicant: BAROT AND SONS PTY LTD

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2899 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 12 June 2019

Date of Last Submission: 12 June 2019

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 June 2019

REPRESENTATION

Mr S Shukla appeared on behalf of the applicant.

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mr J Lambe
HWL Ebsworth

ORDERS

1. Grant leave to Mr Satyaprakash Shukla, a director of the applicant, to appear on behalf of the applicant.

2. The oral application for an adjournment is refused.

DATE OF ORDERS: 12 June 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2899 of 2018

BAROT AND SONS PTY LTD

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings were commenced on 15 October 2018. At the commencement of these proceedings, the applicant corporate entity did not have a solicitor acting on its behalf.

2. On 7 February 2019, a Registrar of the Court made orders giving the applicant an opportunity to file an amended application, affidavit evidence and submissions. On 8 April 2019, this Court made orders fixing the matter for hearing today at 2:15pm. This Court also made orders giving the applicant another opportunity to file an amended application, any affidavit evidence and submissions. No such documents have been filed by the applicant.

3. At the commencement of the hearing, the sole director of the applicant, Mr Satyaprakash Shulkla (“the director”), sought leave to appear on behalf of the applicant company. Notwithstanding the objection of the first respondent, the Court granted leave to the director to appear on behalf of the applicant company.

4. The director tendered a medical certificate in support of an application for an adjournment. That certificate identified that the solicitor on the record apparently is in Thailand, with a throat infection and unable to fly back for today’s hearing.

5. No earlier notice of an adjournment application has been conveyed to the first respondent. The adjournment application was opposed by the first respondent.

6. These are proceedings in respect of which no proper ground was identified in the originating application in support of any jurisdictional error. The application is one on its face which appears hopeless and bound to fail. In circumstances where there has been noncompliance with the Court’s orders made on 8 April 2019 and the Registrar’s orders made on 7 February 2019, no earlier notification given or any request made for an adjournment, and where the proceedings on their face are doomed to failure, the Court is not satisfied that it is appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice to adjourn the matter.

7. Accordingly, the oral application for an adjournment is refused.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Date: 19 July 2019