Lee v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 530
•14 April 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LEE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 530 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – Educational (Temporary) (Class TH) visa – Migration Review Tribunal – non-appearance at Court. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 Rule 13.03A |
| Applicant: | CHUNGAE LEE |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 3005 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 14 April 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 14 April 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 14 April 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No Appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr Bevan |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitors |
ORDERS
The Application is dismissed under Rule 13.03A (c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 for non-attendance.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondents costs fixed in the sum of $5000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3005 of 2007
| CHUNGAE LEE |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
I have an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal that was signed on 31 July 2007 and handed down on 17 August. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review and found that the applicant was not entitled to the grant of an Educational (Temporary) (Class TH) visa.
The applicant has not attended court today.
The history of this matter is that the applicant filed her application and affidavit in support on 27 September 2007. The matter first came before the Court on 15 October when there was no appearance by the applicant and I adjourned the matter until 5 November for directions. On 5 November 2007 the applicant did appear with the assistance of an interpreter in the Korean language. I listed the application for final hearing on the afternoon of 5 February 2008. Unfortunately, it was not possible for the matter to be dealt with on that day. So it was adjourned until 11 February for mention. The applicant did not attend court on that date. I listed the matter for final hearing today, 14 April, and the Court advised the applicant of the hearing date.
She has not attended court. The matter was originally listed for final hearing at 2.15 pm. The applicant was called three times out the court at 2.29 pm. There was no answer to the call. I stood the matter in the list and my staff made inquiries as to whether there was any telephone message or faxed medical certificate or any other indication that the applicant had been delayed or somehow prevented or hindered from attending court today. No such message has been received. The applicant was again called at 2.44 pm three times outside the court. There was no answer to the call, and indeed I understand that there was no-one waiting in the public area outside the courtroom.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate matter to dismiss the application under the provisions of r.13.03A(c) due to the non-attendance by the applicant at the hearing.
There is an application for costs on behalf of the first respondent Minister in the sum of $5000, which is an amount provided for in the scale in the Court Rules. This is an appropriate figure, in my view, as the matter has been before the Court for directions on several occasions previously and it is quite clear for from the court file that the first respondent has not only briefed counsel who has attended but has prepared the matter fully for hearing on a final basis. I intend to order that the applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $5000.
I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: A. Coutman
Date: 23 April 2008
0
0
2