FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gill v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 554
Citation: Gill v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 554 Appeal from: Gill v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2013] FCCA 2122 Parties: INDERJIT SINGH GILL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number: VID 12 of 2014 Judge: BROMBERG J Date of judgment: 26 May 2014 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – dismissal of appeal for want of appearance by appellant. Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) Cases cited: Gill v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2013] FCCA 2122
Al Mamun v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1394Date of hearing: 26 May 2014 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 6 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr R Knowles Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 12 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: INDERJIT SINGH GILL
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First RespondentMIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 MAY 2014
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 12 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: INDERJIT SINGH GILL
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First RespondentMIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMBERG J
DATE:
26 MAY 2014
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia published as Gill v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2013] FCCA 2122. By that judgment, the primary judge considered an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal. The primary judge dismissed the application with costs. The appellant (Mr Gill) appealed to this Court from that judgment.
As far as the Court is aware, Mr Gill is not legally represented. The appeal was listed for hearing commencing this morning at 10.15 am. When the matter was called on for hearing there was no appearance by Mr Gill.
I am satisfied that Mr Gill has been made aware of the hearing date for the appeal and the consequences which may arise from his non-attendance at the hearing. Those consequences include the possibility that his appeal will be dismissed. I am satisfied that due notice of those matters has been provided to Mr Gill, including by correspondence from the first respondent’s solicitors to Mr Gill of 27 March 2014 and of 19 May 2014.
As was outlined by Gray J in Al Mamun v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1394 at [10], there are three possible courses open to me owing to the non-appearance of the appellant. I could adjourn the hearing of the appeal and provide Mr Gill with a further opportunity to attend at a later time. I could exercise a power given to the Court by s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to dismiss the appeal for the failure of Mr Gill to attend the hearing. Alternatively, I could proceed to attempt to deal with the appeal on its merits in the absence of Mr Gill.
For the reasons given at [11] to [13] by Gray J, I take the view that in the circumstances the interests of justice would be best served by making an order dismissing the appeal on the ground of the failure of Mr Gill to attend the hearing.
Accordingly, I will make an order dismissing the appeal and a further order that Mr Gill pay the first respondent’s costs.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg. Associate:
Dated: 28 May 2014
- AGLC
- Gill v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 554
- Case
- [2014] FCA 554
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the failure to appear constituted a sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal. The court considered the Federal Court Rules 2011, particularly Rule 39.32, which provides that an appeal may be dismissed if the appellant fails to appear. The court also noted that the appellant had been served with the necessary documents and had been given ample opportunity to be heard. Despite this, the appellant did not take any steps to participate in the proceedings. The court found that the appellant's failure to appear and his lack of communication with the court justified the dismissal of the appeal.
In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the first respondent. The court concluded that the appellant's absence without explanation was a valid reason for dismissing the appeal. The court's decision was in accordance with the rules and the principles of procedural fairness. The orders made by the court reflected the consequences of the appellant's failure to participate in the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.