BOAKYE-DANQUAH v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 1030
•8 December 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BOAKYE-DANQUAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2004] FMCA 1030 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – Extended Eligibility (Temporary) (class TK) visa – General (Residence) (class AS) visa – application for review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal – applicant a citizen of Ghana – where there is no appearance by the applicant. |
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r. 13.03A
| Applicant: | COMFORT BOAKYE-DANQUAH |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SYG1432 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 8 December 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 8 December 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | No Appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Kennett |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson Waldron |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A.
The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $3,800.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1432 of 2004
| COMFORT BOAKYE-DANQUAH |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL &INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the applicant two visas, either an Extended Eligibility (Temporary) Class TK Visa or a General (Residence) Class AS Visa.
Both of those applications were refused by a delegate of the Minister on 15 December 1999. The Migration Review Tribunal affirmed that decision on 15 October 2001 although that decision is set aside on judicial review and the Tribunal considered the matter afresh.
On 21 April 2004 the Tribunal, having considered the matter for the second time, handed down a decision which again affirmed the decision of the delegate in each case.
The applicant then applied for a review of that decision in this Court. She in fact lodged an amended application on 18 October 2004. At that time she was represented by a firm of solicitors, Drexler and Drexler, Attorneys of 307 Pitt Street, Sydney.
Since then however, on 29 November 2004, the applicant's solicitor has withdrawn his appearance and has annexed a copy of a letter which appears to be from the applicant, in which she asks the attorneys to discontinue acting for her.
Whether that is an intention for her to discontinue these proceedings or whether it is just a withdrawal of her instructions, I am not aware. But in either case the applicant has made it quite clear to the solicitors concerned that they are to take no further action and they have quite properly informed the Court, and I presume the respondent's solicitors, of that fact.
The fact is that it is now after the hour of 10.15. It is 10.49 am. The applicant has been called on several occasions and has not answered the call. I have been asked by Mr Kennett, counsel for the respondent, to dismiss the application according to the provisions of rule 13.03A.
In my view that application was appropriate. I do not see any need to require the respondent's legal advisers or our interpreter to remain at the Court any further as it is quite clear that the applicant is not going to appear. No messages have been received by the Court and it does not appear that the applicant has gone to the wrong Court by mistake.
This is also a matter where it is appropriate to make an order for costs. Costs would follow the event and of course the applicant has not advised the respondent of any intention not to proceed and so the respondent has had the responsibility of preparing the case for hearing, including briefing counsel. Counsel was not able to take any other brief as counsel was not aware of the fact the matter was not proceeding until now.
Mr Kennett has put to me, and I think with some force, that this is a matter where a greater degree of preparation was required due to the nature of the proceedings. It is a matter that is somewhat more complex than the average refugee application for instance. It did in fact require an examination of the issues relating to two different types of visas and a somewhat more complex fact situation. In my view an order for costs in the sum of $3800 is well within the range that would be appropriate.
For these reasons I make the orders attached at the commencement of this judgment.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: A. Coutman
Date: 10 January 2005
0
0