Matam v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 1039
•16 December 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MATAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2004] FMCA 1039 |
MIGRATION – Student Visa.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – whether sufficient evidence provided to support adjournment delay pressure of hearing in absence of medical condition insufficient – application refused – applicant had adequate opportunity to prepare case – responsibility of Applicant to provide evidence of physical or mental disability preventing appearance at Court.
| Applicant: | ANIL NATH RAVIKOTI MATAM |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | MLG 1108 of 2003 |
| Delivered on: | 16 December 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Hearing Date: | 16 December 2004 |
| Judgment of: | McInnis FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr. C.G. Fairfield |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson Waldron |
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1108 of 2003
| ANIL NATH RAVIKOTI MATAM |
Applicant
and
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
In this matter the applicant has sought adjournment of these proceedings and has relied upon correspondence dated 8 December 2004 addressed to the court, a copy of which has been provided to the respondent, and which claims:
“Due to psychological pressures and anxiety I find myself unable to bear the pressure of attending the hearing and thereby request the court to postpone my hearing date. I have attached a medical certificate from my doctor”.
The letter goes on to state that the lawyer for the Minister has refused to postpone the hearing and asks the court to understand the situation and give a later date.
That letter had attached to it a document purporting to be a medical report and/or certificate from a Dr Donna Golding, who appears to be a psychologist. In that report the author refers to the applicant attending upon her for psychological counselling and advice regarding his hearing in the Federal Magistrates Court concerning the matter about his visa status. The report states:
“He is experiencing ongoing pressures, including academic studies and exams, financial pressures, family responsibilities and feels extremely stressed about facing the court. All of these stressors have been accumulating over the past three months. In particular, thoughts of facing the court evoke great anxiety, especially given the complex nature of his case and the potential consequences from the results of the court's decision.
Considering all of the above, I recommend that Mr Ravikoti Matam continue counselling to enable him to cope with these stressors and, due to his psychological instability, urge that this court case be postponed from the present date to allow three or four months' counselling and recovery. I believe this is necessary to enable Mr Ravikoti Matam to adequately represent himself in court”.
Upon the court receiving the correspondence and the attachment, I had instructed my associate to advise the parties that the matter would remain listed and I would hear further argument in support of any application for adjournment. The applicant who is unrepresented and who understandably is concerned about the proceedings as a result not just simply of the potential consequences of any outcome but also simply the procedure of a court case itself involving, as it does, consideration of what are often regarded as technical issues upon judicial review has confirmed that the contents of the correspondence and the material from the psychologist are accurate. He further confirmed that he does not have a specific psychiatric illness or condition other than suffering from significant stress as a result of the matters to which reference has been made.
It is clear that the respondent had commenced the proceedings by application in the Federal Court on 22 August 2003. In that court orders were made by Marshall J on 7 October 2003 requiring, amongst other things, the applicant to file and serve an amended application with proper particulars on or before 24 October 2003, together with a supplementary book of documents, if any, by the same date. The applicant was further ordered to provide contentions of fact and law on or before 7 November 2003 and it is noted that although he has not complied strictly with that time limit, there is a document filed on 21 November 2003 entitled Contentions of Fact and Law which are clearly from the applicant. To that extent I am satisfied that despite the short delay the applicant has complied with that part of the orders of the Federal Court, which had otherwise transferred the matter to this court.
When the matter came before this court on 17 December 2003 a registrar fixed the matter for hearing on 19 October 2004. It was then refixed before this court for this day. It is clear to me that in considering an application for an adjournment the court has a broad discretion to consider the material. I have not thought it appropriate to require the applicant to give evidence but have otherwise accepted what he has said from the bar table by way of support through his application for an adjournment. He is concerned now about the outcome of his academic results and otherwise concerned, as indicated in the correspondence, about proceeding with this application unrepresented. The application is opposed by the respondent.
In my view, in the exercise of a discretion in matters of this kind the court needs to be mindful of the fact that it would be a very common feature of applications of this type for applicants to be concerned and anxious about the outcome and the conduct of the proceedings. If the court were to simply grant an adjournment based upon those factors alone, then one would suspect that there would be many applications made on a fairly frequent basis to the court seeking to further adjourn the hearing and consequently delay any adverse effects of any outcome which might be against the applicant's interests. That would be a particularly common feature of applications of this type for obvious reasons that they usually involve issues concerning the refusal to grant visas which would permit applicants to remain in this country.
As with all applications for adjournments, it is appropriate not just to consider the particular circumstances and nature of the application but to consider the merits of the application and the evidence placed before it. In my view, having regard to the nature of the application and the general principles of an application for an adjournment and particularly having regard to the chronology of events where in this instance the application has been filed more than 12 months ago and other material filed last year, I am satisfied that the applicant has had adequate opportunity to properly prepare his case before the court.
It is incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate by evidence which could be properly examined if necessary either a physical or mental inability to actually continue or other grounds upon which the court can act, having regard to the appropriate evidence. There is, in my view, insufficient evidence before this court to persuade the court that the applicant by virtue of any medical condition that he is physically or mentally unable to proceed with the application. In the exercise of my discretion, having regard to the chronology of events, it is my view that it is inappropriate to grant an adjournment. The application for adjournment is refused.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of McInnis FM
Deputy Associate: Brooke Evans
Date: 16 December 2004
0
0