BZY16 v Minister for Immigration

[2017] FCCA 2390

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BZY16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2017] FCCA 2390

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for an adjournment – whether adequate reasons given for inability to proceed with hearing – whether there would be any utility in granting an adjournment – adjournment refused.

Applicant: BZY16

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1991 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Manousaridis

Hearing date: 21 September 2017

Date of Last Submission: 21 September 2017

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 21 September 2017

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in person assisted by an interpreter

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Ms C Hillary of DLA Piper Australia

ORDERS

1. The application for an adjournment is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1991 of 2016

BZY16

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. On 6 October 2016 this matter came before the Court on a first court date. On that day directions were made by Registrar Morgan that the first respondent would file and serve a bundle of relevant documents (Court Book) by 20 October 2016, and the matter would be listed for hearing of the application for an extension of time.  That application came before me this morning.

2. In the course of my identifying the documents that would be necessary for me to consider when considering the application for an extension of time the applicant informed me that he had not received the Court Book. He informed me that a “Ms Kirwan” had been representing his interests in this matter, and that the address for service that he had given to the Court for the purposes of these proceedings was the address of the office of Ms Kirwan.  The applicant informed me that Ms Kirwan’s office was no longer in existence.

3. Although the applicant was vague about when he became aware of Ms Kirwan’s office being closed, I understood him to say that he became aware of its closure in the last three months.  It became apparent that the applicant wished to apply for an adjournment for him to have an opportunity to consult a lawyer.  I then heard submissions as to why I should grant an adjournment. 

4. I asked the applicant why it is that he had taken no action to represent his interests by engaging a lawyer or seeking to engage a lawyer after he became aware that the office of Ms Kirwan had closed.  He was unable to give me an answer. For reasons that will be made clear, that response is understandable, because, when I asked the applicant whether he had any money to engage a lawyer, he informed me that he would have to obtain work rights in order to obtain money to engage a lawyer.  The applicant confirmed that he had no such rights.  The applicant said that he promised he would look for a lawyer and…