ELK18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

[2020] FCA 321

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ELK18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 321

Appeal from:	Application for extension of time:  ELK18 v Minister for Immigration and Anor [2019] FCCA 1475
File number:	QUD 463 of 2019
Judge:	LOGAN J
Date of judgment:	7 February 2020
Date of hearing:	7 February 2020
Registry:	Queensland
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	2
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr B McGlade
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The second respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs

ORDERS

QUD 463 of 2019

BETWEEN:

ELK18

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 FEBRUARY 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The extension of time application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs, of and incidental to the application, as fixed by the Registrar or agreed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

LOGAN J:

1. When this proceeding was called on, shortly after the time appointed in the listing notice for hearing, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant at the bar table.  That remained the case after, at my request, the court officer called the name of the case three times in the public area.  The Court file contains an email, now exhibit 1, of 16 December 2019, which notifies the listing of the case for today, in this Courthouse, at 2.15 pm.  I note that the email address of the applicant, as set out in the extension of time application, is one and the same as that used by the Court’s National Operations Registry in the dispatch of the listing notice to the applicant.  That email was sent, at the same time, to addresses inferentially within the firm of solicitors who act for the Minister.  The Minister has appeared today by counsel and a solicitor.  I draw, as a result of that, a further inference that it is inherently likely that the email went to its intended addressees.

2. If only out of an abundance of caution, I adjourned the proceeding for a short time to allow inquiries to be made in the registry, by the court officer, as to whether there has been attendance by the applicant at the registry, either in person or even by telephone today.  In short, the report provided by the court officer in open court thereafter, in response to a question by me, was that there had been no attendance today, either in person or by telephone, by the applicant.  In these circumstances, the application made by the Minister, for the dismissal of the proceeding, for want of prosecution, should be granted. 

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Logan.

Associate:       

Dated:       11 March 2020