FMG18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
[2023] FedCFamC2G 565
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
FMG18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 565
File number(s): SYG 2925 of 2018 Judgment of: JUDGE D HUMPHREYS Date of judgment: 12 May 2023 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Protection visa – whether Tribunal failed to afford applicant natural justice and procedural fairness - Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.06 Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 9 Date of last submission/s: 12 May 2023 Date of hearing: 12 May 2023 Place: Parramatta Solicitor for the Applicant: No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant Solicitor for the Respondents: Ms Edmondstone ORDERS
SYG 2925 of 2018 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: FMG18
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE D HUMPHREYS
DATE OF ORDER:
12 MAY 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed pursuant to r 13.06 (1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
2.The Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $1,285.00.
3.No further Application’s in a Case are to be filed by the Applicant in this matter, without leave of the Court, noting that the Applicant has failed to appear in Court on two occasions.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE D HUMPHREYS
INTRODUCTION
This matter arises as a result of an original application for judicial review in this Court, following an unsuccessful claim made at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in relation to a Protection visa.
The applicant made claims that she was at risk because of her political and her family’s political opinion in Malaysia. It may come as no great surprise, when I outline the history of the proceedings, that the applicant did not appear before the Tribunal. When the matter came before the Court, no submissions had been filed or other material other than the Initiating Application.
APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT
On 16 February 2023, this Court dismissed the matter, pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (“the Rules”). The Court also ordered that the applicant pay costs, fixed in the amount of $5,600.00.
The applicant then subsequently filed an Application in a proceeding seeking to have this matter re-instated. The matter has been listed before this Court today and, unsurprisingly, the applicant has again failed to appear.
The Court has been provided with a copy of an email that was sent to the applicant at the email address which she used in the Application in a Proceeding, which attached a letter dated 4 May 2023, including various submissions that were going to be made and other matters by the respondent. This included that if the applicant did not appear today, the First Respondent would seek to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance and that a costs order could be sought against them.
The Court proposes to dismiss this matter pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Rules. The Court notes that the respondent seeks costs in the amount of $1,285.00, and the Court proposes to make a costs order in that amount.
CONSIDERATION
It is perhaps worth adding this. It is very difficult in circumstances where this Court has enormous pressures, based on its time to hear matters, to have a situation where it appears, on the basis of what has happened previously and today, that this has been nothing but a cynical attempt by the applicant to game the system in order to extend her stay in Australia.
Court resources are a valuable resource. There is an interpreter here. Ms Edmondstone is here. The Court requires two associates, and I am here. The cost of the proceedings which she has cynically – and I use that because, in the circumstances, I can think of no other word that is appropriate – sought to turn and pursue has cost the system an enormous amount of money.
More importantly, what it has done is that it has deprived another applicant who wants to have their case heard and determined of the opportunity to do so. To the extent that I can, and I do not propose to do that, one would be tempted to turn and declare, in relation to these proceedings at least, that the applicant has been vexatious. What I propose to do is to make a direction that the applicant is not to be allowed to file any further application in this matter unless and until obtaining leave of the Court.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge D Humphreys. Deputy Associate:
Dated: 12 May 2023
0
0
0