Bollati v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 673
•9 May 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BOLLATI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 673 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – review of visa refusal – subclass 457 – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – where applicant's proposed employer was not approved as a business sponsor – where MRI sent the applicant a letter under s.359A of the Migration Act 1958. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.359A Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.03A(c) |
| Applicant: | PAOLO ANGELO BOLLATI |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 2744 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 9 May 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 9 May 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 9 May 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Johnson |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson Waldron |
ORDERS
That the application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) for default of appearance by the applicant.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,500.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2744 of 2004
| PAOLO ANGELO BOLLATI |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal made on 6 August 2004. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of a temporary business entry (Class UC) visa.
The application came before the Court for the first time on 23 September 2004. The Registrar listed the application for hearing at 10.15 am today. The application was originally listed for hearing before Mowbray FM who also sits on this floor. As his Honour is not available to hear the matter today a decision was made several weeks ago that I would hear the matter.
Correspondence has been sent to both the applicant and the respondent confirming that the matter would remain listed for final hearing at the same time on the same date except that it was now listed for hearing in Court 7B rather than Mowbray FM's Court on the same level. There has been no appearance by the applicant. The matter was called at 10.15 am, the applicant did not appear. I stood the matter down in case the applicant was late. My associate informs me that no telephone call, letter or fax message has been received from the applicant or anyone on his behalf advising that he is late or has somehow been delayed or hindered in attending Court today. I arranged for the matter to be called again at a quarter to eleven. There is still no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. There is no point in allowing this matter to remain in the list any longer. I propose to apply the provisions of rule 13.03A(c) to dismiss the matter for default of appearance by the applicant.
Counsel for the respondent, Mr Johnson, as sought an order for costs. In my view this is an appropriate matter for costs as the respondent's legal advisers had to go to the trouble of preparing the matter for hearing and were not to know that the applicant would not attend. This is a matter that I certify as being appropriate for the briefing of counsel.
The respondent's legal advisers seek a lump sum of $4500 for costs. In my view that is well within the range envisaged by the scale in schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. The application is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03A(c) for default of appearance by the applicant. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $4500.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: S. Polley
Date: 17 May 2005
0
0
2