Batta v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)

[2024] FedCFamC2G 1176

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Batta v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 1176

File number(s):	MLG 844 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE C. E. KIRTON KC
Date of judgment:	7 November 2024
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – oral application for an adjournment of the hearing – oral application dismissed.
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	6
Date of hearing:	7 November 2024
Place:	Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicants:	The Applicants appeared in person
Solicitor for the First Respondents:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Second Respondent:	Submitting appearance, save as to costs

ORDERS

MLG 844 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

RAHUL BATTA

First Applicant

AMANJOT KAUR

Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE C. E. KIRTON KC
DATE OF ORDER:	7 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The First and Second Applicants’ oral application for an adjournment of the hearing be dismissed.

2.Judgment in relation to the Application for Review be reserved.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR JUDGE C.E. KIRTON KC:

1. In this matter, the First Applicant and the Second Applicant (jointly the Applicants) apply for an adjournment of the hearing today. The basis of the application for the adjournment is that the Applicants wish to obtain legal advice. The application is an oral application and is not supported by any affidavit material.

2. The solicitors for the First Respondent oppose the adjournment application. The originating application of the Applicants was filed on 28 April 2021, some three and a half years ago.  The decision that is relevant to the application before the Court today was made on 5 September 2024 by Judicial Registrar Cummings (Registrar’s Decision). The Application for Review in relation to the Registrar's Decision, which is currently before the Court, was filed on 11 September 2024 (Application for Review), nearly two (2) months ago. 

3. The solicitor for the First Respondent submits that given two (2) months have transpired since the Application for Review was filed, the Applicants should be well prepared for today's hearing. 

4. The First Applicant submitted that since filing the Application for Review, he has attempted, or the Applicants have attempted, to find a migration lawyer to act on their behalf. The First Applicant contends that they were unable to get an appointment with a migration lawyer. 

5. I refuse the oral application for an adjournment for two reasons: 

   (a)Firstly, the originating application was filed on 28 April 2021, some three and a half years ago; and

   (b)Secondly, the Application for Review was filed some two (2) months ago.

6. I do not accept the submission that it was impossible for the Applicants to find a lawyer over a period of eight (8) weeks since the Application for Review was filed. In these circumstances, the oral application for an adjournment of the hearing is refused, and I now request that the Applicants proceed with their submissions in relation to the Application for Review.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge C. E. Kirton KC.

Associate:

Dated:       11 November 2024