CTD15 v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 1269

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CTD15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 1269

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Non-appearance of Applicant at final hearing

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001

Applicant: CTD15

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3443 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Dowdy

Hearing date: 24 May 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 24 May 2016

REPRESENTATION

No appearance for the applicant.

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Wong (solicitor).

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mills Oakley.

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

2. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs of the proceeding in the sum of $5200.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3443 of 2015

CTD15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Applicant filed an application in this court on 21 December 2015, seeking that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to him be quashed.  He also filed, at the same time as his application, an affidavit of his, sworn 21 December 2015, in which he annexed the decision record of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for which he sought constitutional relief.

2. The matter was listed first before me on 15 January 2016, when the Applicant appeared in my 9.30 am list on that date, and Ms Sangha appeared as solicitor for the First Respondent.  On that date, consent orders were entered into providing for the preparation of the matter and for the final hearing of the matter to take place here in court 9.1 today at 10.15 am.

3. The Applicant has been called outside court three times at 10:15am and has not appeared.  Further, Ms Wong relies on the affidavit of Ms Nicola Johnson, sworn 17 May 2016, which satisfies me that the Applicant is no longer in Australia and is in no position to forward his application.  In those circumstances, Ms Wong not unreasonably asks for the application to be dismissed and she seeks the sum of $5200 for the First Respondent’s costs, and she tells me that that is an amount which is in favour of the Applicant because it’s less than the scale costs.  In all those circumstances, the orders that I make are:

4. That pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c), in the default of appearance of the Applicant here today, his application is dismissed with costs and those costs are assessed by me in the sum of $5200 and I order that the Applicant pay those costs to the First Respondent.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Dowdy

Date: 24 May 2016