Kaur v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)

[2021] FCCA 91

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kaur v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2021] FCCA 91

File number(s):	MLG 4003 of 2019
Judgment of:	JUDGE EGAN
Date of judgment:	21 January 2021
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – Oral application for an adjournment – no medical evidence – ample opportunity for applicant to obtain legal representation – application for adjournment refused.
Number of paragraphs:	5
Date of last submission/s:	21 January 2021
Date of hearing:	21 January 2021
Place:	Brisbane
Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in-person by telephone
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Ms Reid of Clayton Utz
Second Respondent:	Submitting appearance save as to costs

ORDERS

MLG 4003 of 2019

BETWEEN:

SUKHBEER KAUR

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE EGAN
DATE OF ORDER:	21 JANUARY 2021

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.The Applicant’s oral application for an adjournment of today’s hearing be refused.

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE EGAN:

1. I have before me a matter which was filed in the Court on 18 November 2019, namely an application for review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal handed down on 22 October 2019.  The matter was originally listed for hearing on 29 July 2020, but on the application of the applicant, that hearing was vacated.

2. Orders had earlier been made on 26 March 2020 by Registrar Carlton.  Such orders required the applicant to file any amended application by 4:00pm on 14 May 2020, any affidavit containing any additional evidence upon which the applicant proposed to rely by 4:00pm on 14 May 2020, and written submissions and a list of authorities also to be filed by the applicant by 4:00pm, twenty-eight (28) days prior to the hearing of the matter.  The applicant has not filed any amended application, any affidavit, any written submissions or a list of authorities despite having been given due notice by the Registry of the hearing today. 

3. The applicant has sought an adjournment of today’s hearing on two bases, firstly, on medical grounds, and secondly, because she needed time to engage a lawyer.

4. There is no evidence from any medical practitioner justifying an adjournment of this hearing. That basis is without merit.  Secondly, the applicant has had more than sufficient time to engage the services of a lawyer who could either be obtained through Legal Aid or on a pro bono basis.  The Court does not accept either of the two bases put forward by the applicant as justifying grounds for an adjournment of the hearing.  The first respondent has opposed the application for the adjournment and has incurred substantial costs to date by reason of the earlier hearing being vacated.

5. In such circumstances, the Court refuses the application for the adjournment.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan.

Associate: SW

Dated:       21 January 2021