Gill v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 3195

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GILL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 3195

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal – no appearance by the applicant – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

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

Applicant: AMANDEEP SINGH GILL

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1675 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 20 August 2014

Date of Last Submission: 20 August 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 20 August 2014

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mr L Dennis of Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The application made on 19 June 2014 is dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $1,331.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1675 of 2014

AMANDEEP SINGH GILL

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me today an application made on 19 June 2014 pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) seeking review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal made on 21 May 2014, which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant the applicant a Visitor “Class UB” visa.

2. When the applicant filed his application to the Court on 19 June 2014 he also filed an affidavit said to have been made by him on 19 June 2014.  I note from the face of the application that at the time of filing, the Court’s registry listed the matter for a first Court date at 9.30 am, 20 August 2014, and provided details of the courtroom and address. 

3. When the matter was called today, there was no appearance by, or for, the applicant.  It is now nearly an hour and a half after the scheduled time that the applicant was required to attend.  I am unaware of any communication to the Court’s Registry by the applicant expressing any difficulty in attending today, or otherwise seeking any adjournment of the Court event today. 

4. I have also before me the evidence tendered by the Minister; respondent’s exhibit one and respondent’s exhibit two (“RE1” and “RE2”). These were letters sent in one instance to the address for service provided on the application to the Court, and in the other instance, sent to the address provided by the applicant as his address on the affidavit that he filed at the time of the making of his application. 

5. I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, and also having regard to the notation by the Court’s Registry on the application made to the Court, that the applicant had reasonable notice of the Court event today.  His failure to attend remains unexplained. 

6. The Minister has sought that the Court make an order dismissing the application pursuant to r.13.03(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). In all the circumstances, I agree with the Minister that the substantive application to the Court should be dismissed for want of appearance. I will make that order.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Associate: 

Date: 26 November 2015