Joseph v Minister for Home Affairs

Case [2019] FCA 582


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Joseph v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 582

Appeal from: Joseph v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Anor [2018] FCCA 1478
File number: VID 692 of 2018
Judge: BROMBERG  J
Date of judgment: 17 April 2019
Catchwords: MIGRATION – where the applicant failed to attend – appeal dismissed.
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 25(2B)(bb)(ii)
Cases cited: Al Mamun v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1394
Date of hearing: 17 April 2019
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr van der Westhuizen of DLA Piper Australia
Counsel for the Second Appellant: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs

ORDERS

VID 692 of 2018
BETWEEN:

JOMON JOSEPH

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMBERG  J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 APRIL 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BROMBERG J:

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia delivered on 25 May 2018 and published as Joseph v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Anor [2018] FCCA 1478. By that judgment, the primary Judge dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming the decision of the delegate of the first respondent not to grant the appellant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.

  2. The appellant’s 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 the appellant.  I am satisfied by reference to the affidavit of Ms Garreffa, affirmed on 15 April 2019,  that the appellant has been given notice of the hearing date for the appeal and of the consequences which may arise from his non‑attendance at the hearing.  Those consequences include the possibility that his appeal will be dismissed.  I have also been appraised of an attempt to contact the appellant by telephone just prior to the hearing commencing, but that attempt was unsuccessful. 

  3. 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 the appellant with a further opportunity to attend at a later time. I could exercise the power given to the Court by section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to dismiss the appeal for the failure of the appellant to attend the hearing. Alternatively, I could proceed to attempt to deal with the appeal on its merits in the absence of the appellant.

  4. For the reasons given at [11]-[13] of Al Mamun 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 the appellant to attend the hearing. 

  5. Accordingly, I will make an order dismissing the appeal and further order that the appellant pay the Minister’s costs. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg.

Associate:

Dated:       24 April 2019

Details
AGLC
Joseph v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 582
Case
[2019] FCA 582
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph brought an appeal against the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to a decision to cancel his visa. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue for the Court was whether the failure of the applicant to attend the hearing of his appeal warranted the dismissal of his appeal. Additionally, the Court needed to determine whether the costs of the appeal should be awarded to the respondent.

The Court found that the appellant’s failure to attend the hearing of his appeal was a significant factor in deciding the matter. It held that an appellant’s non-attendance at a hearing could result in the dismissal of the appeal if it was not shown that the non-attendance was due to exceptional circumstances. The Court found that the appellant had not provided any justification for his non-attendance, and thus his appeal was dismissed. Furthermore, the Court awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent, the Minister for Home Affairs, as the appellant’s appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

In conclusion, the Federal Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and ordered him to pay the costs of the appeal to the Minister for Home Affairs. The Court held that the appellant’s failure to attend the hearing of his appeal, without any reasonable justification, warranted the dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, the Court found that the costs of the appeal should be awarded to the respondent due to the lack of reasonable prospects of success of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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.