MAURYA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR
[2011] FMCA 914
•23 November 2011
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:
2
0
0