IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 879 of 1997
BETWEEN:
CHOONG KYOO LEE
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
SACKVILLE J
DATE:
1 MAY 1998
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Pearson, who appears on behalf of the Minister in this matter, has sought an order dismissing the proceedings pursuant to Federal Court Rules, O 32, r 2(1)(c). He does so on the basis that the applicant is absent. It is true that Ms Hong has been granted leave to appear for the applicant today for the limited purpose of seeking an adjournment. However, the applicant is neither present, nor does he have a legal representative or any other authorised representative present for the purposes of the conduct of the proceedings.
It seems to me appropriate that an order be made dismissing the proceedings. I have taken into account the matters referred to in the judgment that I have already delivered, in particular that the applicant has had knowledge for at least two months that the proceedings were set down for hearing today. He has not complied with Court directions for the filing of affidavits. There is nothing in the material before the Court to suggest that there is an arguable case to be made on his behalf.
In these circumstances the appropriate order is that the proceedings be dismissed and that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent. I make those orders.
I certify that this page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville
Associate:
Dated: 1 May 1998
Applicant: Unrepresented Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr A Pearson Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 1 May 1998 Date of Judgment: 1 May 1998
- AGLC
- Lee, Choong Kyoo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 493
- Case
- [1998] FCA 493
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the proceedings should be dismissed due to the applicant's absence and the lack of representation. The court considered the applicant's knowledge of the hearing date, his failure to comply with court directions, and the absence of any material suggesting an arguable case. Justice Sackville concluded that the appropriate course of action was to dismiss the proceedings and order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. The decision underscored the necessity for parties to comply with procedural requirements and appear in court or have proper representation to avoid dismissal. The court's reasoning was grounded in the procedural fairness and the need for the applicant to actively participate in the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.