FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MZAIF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 555
Appeal from: MZAIF v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 334 File number: VID 148 of 2016 Judge: MURPHY J Date of judgment: 18 May 2016 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - dismissal of appeal for failure to appear Date of hearing: 18 May 2016 Registry: Victoria Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 6 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr A Day of DLA Piper Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear ORDERS
VID 148 of 2016 BETWEEN: MZAIF
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MURPHY J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 MAY 2016
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The Appellant pay the First Respondent's costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MURPHY J:
In this proceeding the appellant appeals from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court which dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (MZAIF v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 334). The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, refusing to grant him a Protection (Class XA) visa.
On 21 March 2016 the National Appeals Registrar informed the appellant by post and email that the appeal was listed for hearing before me on 18 May 2016 at 10:15 am. On 17 May 2016 the appellant sent an email to the solicitor for the first respondent, Aaron Day of DLA Piper which said:
I am [appellant’s name]. I am sending this mail requesting you to cancel my hearing.
My hearing will be on Wednesday 18th of May (Reference Number VID 148 / 2016). So I want to cancel this. So I am requesting you to cancel this. Please put this under your consideration.
Mr Day informed the Court that he sought to clarify whether the appellant was seeking to discontinue the proceeding or merely seeking an adjournment. He said, however, that since receiving the email he had been unable to contact the appellant by telephone as the appellant’s phone was switched off. Early on 18 May 2016 Mr Day sent an email to the appellant asking him to clarify that issue but he did not receive a response.
The appellant did not appear when the matter was called on for hearing at 10:20 am today. He has not contacted my chambers since then to explain or justify his non-appearance.
Rule 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) provides that if the appellant is absent when an appeal is called on for hearing the respondent may apply to the Court for an order that the appeal be dismissed. In reliance on that rule the first respondent sought orders dismissing the proceeding.
In my view such an order is appropriate and I have ordered that the appeal be dismissed under r 36.75 and that the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Murphy. Associate:
Dated: 18 May 2016
- AGLC
- Mzaif v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 555
- Case
- [2016] FCA 555
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal should be dismissed for the appellant's non-appearance at the hearing, and if not, whether the alleged procedural errors were significant enough to warrant a review of the AAT's decision. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 and the Federal Court Rules 2011, particularly those concerning the dismissal of appeals for non-appearance and the standards for reviewing AAT decisions. The court also examined the appellant's conduct throughout the proceedings, including his history of non-compliance with court orders and deadlines.
The court concluded that the appellant's failure to appear at the hearing justified the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant had been provided with multiple opportunities to attend the hearing and had repeatedly failed to do so without a valid excuse. The court found that the procedural errors alleged by the appellant did not reach the threshold required to warrant a review of the AAT's decision. The court held that the appellant's non-appearance constituted a failure to prosecute his appeal properly, and as such, the appeal was dismissed. The court also ordered that the appellant pay the Minister's costs associated with the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The Appellant pay the First Respondent's costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.