KWATRA v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 299
•3 March 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KWATRA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 299 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – application for review of decision by Migration Review Tribunal – application for summary dismissal – no appearance by applicant. |
| Applicant: | AJAY KWATRA |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SYG 3661 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 3 March 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney South |
| Hearing date: | 3 March 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | No Appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Kettle |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
The Application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules, for non-attendance by the Applicant.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,500.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3661 of 2004
| AJAY KWATRA |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I am satisfied that the Applicant has not attended Court. I am satisfied from the affidavit of John Stuart Kettle sworn 1 March 2005 that the Applicant was advised by letter of 22 December 2004 that an application for summary dismissal would be heard before me at 10.15 am today at John Maddison Tower, 88 Goulburn Street, Sydney, and that the Applicant was required to attend.
In my view, the Applicant has been given ample notice of the hearing and has been given more than sufficient time to attend. He has not attended Court today, even though I stood the matter down for almost an hour and had him called on each occasion and he has not attended.
Rule 13.03A provides for dismissal for non-attendance and I am satisfied that that has been made out.
The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A for non-attendance by the Applicant, today not being the first Court date.
This is an appropriate case for an order for costs. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1500. The application is removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM.
Associate: V Lee
Date: 15 March 2005
0
0
0