Gill v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 1022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GILL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 1022

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – no appearance.

Legislation:  

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth)

Applicant: KULJIT SINGH GILL

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: ADG 199 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Raphael

Hearing date: 14 May 2014

Date of Last Submission: 14 May 2014

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 14 May 2014

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: No appearance

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr K Tredrea

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Name of the First Respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration and Border Protection”.

2. Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

3. Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $5,000.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT ADELAIDE

ADG 199 of 2013

KULJIT SINGH GILL

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the applicant applied to the Court on 9 July 2013 for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal.  He attended a directions hearing when the matter was set down for hearing, and later was advised that it was set down for hearing today.  On 13 May 2014 the Court was advised that Mr Gill was no longer in Australia and an affidavit had been sworn by Nicholas Daleford James Swan to the effect that the applicant had departed Australia on 1 March 2014.

2. Probably for this reason he was not here when his name was called outside the Court at 2.15pm, and in those circumstances the Court proposes to dismiss the application pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs which have been assessed in the sum of $5,000.00.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Raphael

Associate: 

Date:  21 May 2014