Dadheech v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 809

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DADHEECH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 809

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for judicial review – non-appearance by Applicant at final hearing – application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), s.13.03C

Applicant: LALIT DADHEECH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 2079 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Jones

Hearing date: 15 February 2016

Date of Last Submission: 15 February 2016

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 15 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Smyth

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The name of the Second Respondent be amended to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

2. The application for judicial review filed on 14 October 2014 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 for reason of non-attendance.

3. The Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,825.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 2079 of 2014

LALIT DADHEECH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. The Applicant, Mr Dadheech, has filed an application for judicial review. He has not attended today.

2. This matter was listed for 2.15pm today, it is now 2.45pm and Mr Dadheech has not announced his appearance. He was called outside the Court and did not respond to that call.

3. I should note that this matter was originally listed for today and was changed to a hearing on another date. However, on advice by the Minister’s solicitor that they were briefed on both matters listed today and would appreciate the matter remaining on the same date, the hearing was changed back to the date it originally was, which was on Monday, 15 February 2016 at 2.15pm.

4. I have been passed a copy of a file note by an AGS officer, Mr Christopher McDermott. I have marked it exhibit R1. It records that on 12 February 2016, the AGS officer telephoned the Applicant and informed him that his final hearing was on Monday, 15 February at 2.15pm. It is apparent from the file note that the Applicant did query whether the hearing was on Monday or Wednesday, and Mr McDermott explained to the Applicant that it was on Monday now, and that if he did not attend the hearing on Monday, the Minister would seek to have his applicant dismissed with costs. The Applicant stated that he would “definitely be there”.

5. There is also a file note made by my Associate, who also contacted the Applicant on 12 February 2016 to ensure that he understood that the hearing in fact was to proceed today at 2.15 pm. The file note indicates that she spoke to the Applicant on the phone on his mobile number, and that he said he understood.

6. I am satisfied that in those circumstances, the Applicant was on notice that the hearing was listed for today at 2.15pm. He has not attended and there is no explanation. 

7. Consequently, I grant the Minister’s application to have the Applicant’s application dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 with costs.

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

Associate: 

Date:  11 April 2016