Jiang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2024] FedCFamC2G 1229
•6 November 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Jiang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1229
File number(s): SYG 576 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE STREET Date of judgment: 6 November 2024 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application in a proceeding seeking an adjournment - adjournment is not warranted in the interests of the administration of justice – application dismissed Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 5 Date of hearing: 6 November 2024 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr I Leong Solicitor for the Applicant: Juris Cor Legal Counsel for the Respondent: Mr N Swan Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
SYG 576 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: CHENGUANG JIANG
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE STREET
DATE OF ORDER:
6 NOVEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant in a Proceeding filed 23 October 2024 is dismissed.
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).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE STREET
These proceedings were commenced on 4 April 2024 seeking an injunction in relation to a decision that was made upon the applicant’s return to Australia to cancel the applicant’s visa. The application for an injunction was unsuccessful. On 4 April 2024 the Court made orders standing the matter over until 12 April 2024 and giving the applicant an opportunity to file an amended application. On 12 April 2024 the Court made orders fixing the matter today for a final hearing and identifying the date for the filing of an amended application, the filing of a response, the putting on of a court book and the filing of evidence by the applicant.
The proceedings are ones in relation to which there was then filed on 23 October 2024 an application for an adjournment supported by an affidavit of Mr Jiang of 23 October 2024. That application the proceeding was stood over to today. At the commencement of today’s hearing Mr Leong on behalf of the applicant identified that the application for adjournment was pursued, and he sought to rely upon a further affidavit, which was treated as read, of Mr Jiang of 4 November 2024. In substance, Mr Leong maintained that the adjournment was necessitated by the late delivery of the court book and that there were problems in obtaining the audio recordings.
The Court takes into account the overarching purpose in s 190 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth). Mr Swan on behalf of the Respondent opposed the adjournment on the basis that, first, relief would be futile given the nature of the visa that was in existence and, secondly, that the contentions advanced in respect to the explanation for the need for the adjournment were hollow, given that the content of the court book consisted of documents that were filed, and that there had been ample time to comply with the Court’s orders, and the delay was, in substance, due to the applicant’s own delay and applicant’s non-compliance with the Court’s orders.
The Court finds that the explanation for the delay in relation to the retaining of new counsel and the explanation in relation to the problems encountered by the applicant do not provide a proper basis to justify an adjournment in the interests of the administration of justice, taking into account the overarching purpose and the argument as futility advanced by Mr Leong. The Court is satisfied that an adjournment is not warranted in the interests of the administration of justice.
It is for these reasons the Court makes the above orders.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street. Associate:
Dated: 18 November 2024
0
0
1