CVT16 v Minister for Immigration

[2018] FCCA 2856

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CVT16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2018] FCCA 2856

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application to review decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – no appearance by Applicant.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03C(1)(c)

Applicant: CVT16

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2687 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Barnes

Hearing date: 27 September 2018

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 27 September 2018

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

ORDERS

1. There being no appearance by the Applicant the application of 4 October 2016 is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $6,300.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2687 of 2016

CVT16

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant the Applicant a protection visa.

2. The Applicant sought review by application filed in this court on 4 October 2016.  At a callover, which the Applicant attended on 12 December 2017 with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter, the matter was listed for hearing today.  The orders also specified the date, time and place of the hearing.

3. The Applicant was not present today at the time the matter was listed for hearing.  Nor is he present now, some 20 minutes later. 

4. In these circumstances, the Minister seeks that the matter be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) and costs. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make such orders. The Applicant was on notice from the callover of the hearing date, time and place. I note that he also completed a notice of address for service on that day.

5. In addition, the Minister has tendered and relies on copies of an email to the Applicant and an attached letter serving submissions, reminding the Applicant of the date, time and place of the hearing and informing him that if he did not attend, the Minister would seek orders that the application be dismissed with costs. 

6. While the letter refers to a scheduled “directions” hearing and the scheduled hearing today is, in fact, a final hearing, that is of no import in the circumstances.  The Applicant attended the callover.  The matter was listed for today.  Even if it was a directions hearing, the matter could be dismissed for non-appearance.

7. It is also appropriate that the Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent.  The amount sought is reasonable in light of the nature of this and other similar matters.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Barnes

Date: 4 October 2018