LIANG v Minister for Immigration
[2011] FMCA 838
•19 October 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LIANG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2011] FMCA 838 |
| MIGRATION – No appearance. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 |
| Applicant: | LIXIN LIANG |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1255 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 19 October 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 19 October 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 October 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Minter Ellison |
ORDERS
Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed at the sum of $4,500.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1255 of 2011
| LIXIN LIANG |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Amended Judgment
In this matter an application was filed on 16 June 2011 seeking review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal. On 30June 2011 the applicant appeared in person before Registrar Segal and the matter was set down for hearing on 17 October 2011. On 6 July 2011 the court wrote to the applicant at her last known address, advising her that the hearing was set down for today at 2.15pm. I understand from the respondent that further confirmation of this hearing date and time were provided to the applicant with the respondent’s written submissions.
The applicant was not present in court at 2.15pm and was still not present in Court when her name was called outside at 2.35pm. In the circumstances I propose to dismiss the application, pursuant to Pt.13 R.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,500.00.
I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Date: 31 October 2011
0
0
1