CZX16 v Minister for Immigration

[2018] FCCA 679

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CZX16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2018] FCCA 679

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Immigration Assessment Authority.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant at scheduled hearing – failure by applicant to comply with Orders  made by the Court – application dismissed pursuant to rules 13.03C(1)(c) and 13.03B(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

Legislation:
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.03C(1), 13.03B(1)

Cases Cited:
SZTAL v Ministerfor Immigration & Anor [2017] HCA 34

Applicant: CZX16

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: SYG 2797 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Emmett

Hearing date: 21 March 2018

Date of Last Submission: 21 March 2018

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 21 March 2018

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Hamish Bevan

Solicitors for the Respondents: DLA Piper

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2797 of 2016

CZX16

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The first respondent seeks an order pursuant to rules 13.03C(1)(c) and 13.03B(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules2001 (Cth), that the proceeding before this Court commenced by way of application filed on 13 October 2016 be dismissed, by reason of the failure of the applicant to attend the scheduled hearing and by reason of the failure of the applicant to comply with Orders made by the Court on 5 February 2018.

2. In support, counsel for the first respondent, Mr Bevan, read the Affidavit of Ms Xuhan Alta Shi, affirmed 19 March 2018. Ms Shi’s Affidavit annexed a letter dated 14 March 2018 addressed to the applicant at the applicant’s address for service in Australia. That letter, being annexure A, enclosed by way of service a copy of the first respondent’s further submissions and further provided details of the time, date and location of this morning’s hearing.

3. The applicant attended a directions hearing on 16 February 2017 before a registrar of this Court and on that occasion was given leave to file and serve any further evidence and written submissions in support of the applicant’s application for an extension of time. The application for an extension of time was set down for hearing on 20 March 2017.

4. On 20 March 2017, time was extended to the applicant to file an application seeking judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority dated 19 August 2016. On that occasion, the applicant was provided with a Justice Connect pamphlet and the contact details of legal services providers and translating and interpreting services in documents headed in the applicant’s own language.

5. Order 2 made on that day directed the first respondent to notify my Chambers within seven days of the outcome of the special leave application in SZTAL v Ministerfor Immigration & Anor [2017] HCA 34 (“SZTAL”).

6. Following notification to the Court of the outcome of SZTAL, the matter was listed before me on 5 February 2018 for hearing. On that occasion, directions were made directing the applicant to serve an amended application giving full particulars of each ground of review relied upon, any further evidence, and submissions in support.

7. No document has been filed by the applicant either in accordance with the directions made by this Court, or otherwise. The matter was listed for hearing this morning at 10:00am. It is now 10.16am. The matter has been called on at least three occasions outside, the most recent being within the last five minutes, and there is no appearance by the applicant. No communication has been received from the applicant either by the first respondent’s lawyers or by the Court seeking an adjournment, or for any other reason.

8. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of today’s scheduled hearing and, for whatever reason, has chosen not to appear.

9. In the circumstances, the orders sought by the first respondent are appropriate, and the proceeding before this Court commenced by filing on 13 October 2016 should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett

Associate: 

Date:  21 March 2018