Jambla v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2018] FCA 277

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jambla v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 277

Appeal from:	Application for leave to appeal: Jambla v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor [2017] FCCA 2149
File number:	VID 877 of 2017
Judge:	NORTH J
Date of judgment:	16 February 2018
Date of hearing:	16 February 2018
Registry:	Victoria
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	4
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant did not appear.
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Ms S Koya of DLA Piper

ORDERS

VID 877 of 2017

BETWEEN:

VIKAS JAMBLA

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 FEBRUARY 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application filed by the applicant on 8 August 2017, is dismissed with costs.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NORTH J:

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit Court on 27 July 2017.  He has not appeared on the hearing of the application. 

2. An affidavit affirmed on 14 February 2018 by Breanna Gabrielle Garreffa, a legal assistant employed in the firm DLA Piper Australia, lawyers for the respondents, indicates that the applicant was served a copy of the first respondent’s written submissions together with a letter indicating the hearing date and time.  Those documents were served in three ways:

   (a)By courier directed to the applicant at 14/74 Callander Road, Noble Park, 3174.  That is the address which the applicant endorsed on the application.

   (b)He was also served at another address, 2/11 Lawrence Crescent, Noble Park, 3174.   There is a record of delivery in respect of those two documents from Toll Priority Australia indicating that they were delivered on 9 February 2018.

   (c)The same documents were served by email addressed to the applicant’s known email address. 

3. At approximately 2.30 pm, the Court sought to contact the applicant by phone on two telephone numbers.  One number was obtained from the application and the other number was obtained from the Court’s database.  One of those numbers had a recording which said that the line had been discontinued and the other was engaged on a number of occasions. 

4. Being satisfied that the documents referred to in [2] herein were served and consequently the applicant has been given notice of the hearing date and time, the application is dismissed with costs pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.

Associate:

Dated:       8 March 2018