Kaur v Minister for Immigration

[2019] FCCA 2324

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KAUR & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2019] FCCA 2324

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for an adjournment – absence of medical certificate but excuse for non-attendance related to personal injury being sustained shortly prior to hearing – adjournment application granted.

First Applicant: VEERPAL KAUR

Second Applicant: GURJANT SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: PEG 683 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Egan

Hearing date: 24 July 2019

Date of Last Submission: 24 July 2019

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 24 July 2019

REPRESENTATION

First Applicant: In person

Second Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Ms Ward of Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The matter be adjourned to 9:30 am on 10 September 2019 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Melbourne.

2. The costs of and incidental to the appearance today thrown away as a result of the non-appearance of the second applicant, be reserved.

DIRECTIONS

(A)Each of the first and second applicants personally attend at court on 10 September 2019 at 9:30 am, failing which, the court will entertain an application for dismissal of any application for review of the relevant decision, in respect of either of them.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

PEG 683 of 2017

VEERPAL KAUR

First Applicant

GURJANT SINGH

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was listed before the Court for hearing today.  The application is an application made by two people, namely Gurjant Singh and Veerpal Kaur. Ms Kaur appeared today assisted by an interpreter in the Punjabi language. The Court was advised by Ms Kaur, when asked where Mr Singh was, that Mr Singh had suffered an injury at work on Monday night whereby a leg injury has prevented him from attending Court today.

2. This matter has a history whereby it has, on two previous occasions, been the subject of orders for dismissal by reason of the non-attendance of the parties. In respect of the first non-appearance, there was an appeal, and by order of Anastassiou J of the Federal Court, the matter was remitted for hearing back to the Federal Circuit Court.

3. The application remitted for hearing was the subject of an application for reinstatement. The matter was first dismissed, by reason of the non-attendance of the applicants, by order of Judge Hartnett on 17 July 2018. The matter was, after remitter, secondly ordered dismissed, for the non-appearance of the applicants, on 22 August 2018 by Judge Hartnett.

4. It is unfortunate that today the second applicant has not attended.  There is no medical evidence that has been presented to the Court as to why he is not present. Nevertheless, the Court is loath to proceed in circumstances where an explanation for non-attendance has been given which has the ring of credibility about it.

5. True it was that no notice was given to the first respondent, or the first respondent’s lawyers, as to the intended non-attendance of the male applicant, but it is the case that the Court has been informed that the injury to the male applicant only occurred on Monday evening. What notice which might have been able to have been given yesterday would not have drastically altered the position of the first respondent in any event. In those circumstances, the Court is of the view that the matter should be adjourned for further hearing in the week commencing 9 September 2019 and, specifically, that the matter be adjourned for rehearing by this Court at 9.30 am on Tuesday 10 September 2019. 

6. It is appropriate, in addition to the adjournment of the matter, that directions be given, namely that each of the male and female applicants are to personally attend at Court on 10 September 2019 at 9.30 am, failing which the Court will entertain any application for dismissal of any application, filed by either of the applicants, for review of the relevant decision. It is further ordered that the costs of and incidental to the appearance today thrown away as a result of the non-appearance of the male applicant be reserved.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Egan

Date: 22 August 2019