MAURYA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MAURYA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2011] FMCA 914

MIGRATION – Review of decision by Migration Review Tribunal – Migration Review Tribunal – non attendance by Applicant at the first court event – dismissal pursuant to Reg 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.424A, 477
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), Regulation 13.03C(1)(c)

Applicant:

RAJ DHAR MAURYA

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 2410 of 2011

Judgment of:

Emmett FM

Hearing date:

23 November 2011

Date of Last Submission:

23 November 2011

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

23 November 2011

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant.

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms Emily Baggett (DLA Piper Australia)

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2410 of 2011

RAJ DHAR MAURYA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The first respondent seeks an order that the proceeding before this court commenced by way of application filed on 21 October 2011 be dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court rules by reason of the failure of the applicant to appear at today’s first court date.
In support of the application, the first respondent’s solicitor, Ms Baggett, tendered a letter dated 7 November 2011 from the first respondent’s solicitor to the applicant at the applicant address for service. The letter informed the applicant that the matter had been listed in this Court and provided the address of this Court and the date and time of the hearing. The letter also informed the applicant that if the applicant did not attend that the first respondent may seek to have the matter dismissed with costs for non-appearance. That letter is marked Exhibit 1R.
I note that the address to which that letter was sent is the only address provided by the applicant and is identified on the application as his address for service in Australia.
I do note that at the time the application was filed, the address given for the Court location was John Maddison Tower in Goulburn Street, Sydney. However, apart from Exhibit 1R, I note that on 4 November 2011 my chambers wrote to the applicant, at the applicant’s address for service informing him of the date and time of this morning’s first court date hearing and giving him the address and location of the courtroom.
I further note that a person who identified himself as the applicant called my associate this morning and said that he was not appearing, but that a friend was coming instead. The matter has been called outside, the last time at 12.20. There has been no appearance by anybody on behalf of the applicant. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant is aware of today’s first court date and the location of the court and for whatever reason has chosen not to attend.

I also note that the grounds of the application filed on 21 October make bare assertions that are wholly unparticularised
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the orders sought by the first respondent are appropriate.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM

Date:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Magistrates Court was an application by the Minister for Immigration and the Migration Review Tribunal seeking dismissal of the applicant’s review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal. The applicant, Raj Dhar Maurya, did not attend the first court event. The legal issues before the court were whether the application for dismissal should be granted under Regulation 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 due to the applicant's non-appearance and whether the grounds of the application were sufficiently particularised. The court was required to determine whether the dismissal was warranted given the circumstances of the case and the statutory provisions governing such matters.

The court noted that the applicant had been served with multiple notices regarding the hearing, including a letter from the first respondent’s solicitor and a notification from the court itself. Despite this, the applicant did not attend the hearing, nor did any representative. The court observed that the applicant had acknowledged receipt of the notices and chose not to attend the hearing. The court also noted that the grounds of the application were bare assertions and lacked detail. In light of these circumstances, the court was satisfied that the dismissal was appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of appearing at court hearings and the potential consequences of failing to do so, including the possibility of dismissal and an order for costs.

The court granted the application for dismissal, noting that the applicant had been adequately informed of the hearing details and had chosen not to attend. The court highlighted the statutory framework and court rules that supported the dismissal, including Regulation 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. The court concluded that the dismissal was appropriate given the applicant’s non-attendance and the lack of particulars in the application.

The court ordered that the proceeding be dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant to the first respondent. The dismissal was effective immediately, and the costs were to be assessed if not agreed upon by the parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established