Mzajl v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 2616

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZAJL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 2616

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Ruling on adjournment application.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27

Applicant: MZAJL

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 1575 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Burchardt

Hearing date: 10 August 2015

Date of Last Submission: 10 August 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 10 August 2015

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: In person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Brown

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz Lawyers

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1575 of 2014

MZAJL

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 4 August, 2014, the applicant filed an application to review

   
   

   a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The application was accompanied by an affidavit which relevantly annexed the decision of the Tribunal.  On 5 November, 2014, Registrar Allaway made orders by consent which set the matter down for trial today.  Unless I misconstrue the matter that is ten months ago and more.

2. Orders were made for the filing of further materials, but the applicant has not filed any such materials.  I do not put that as a criticism in any way because he is self-represented but the fact is that he has taken no steps to progress his case.

3. When the matter was called on today, the applicant has asked for an adjournment.  He tells me that following the orders made in November last year, he contacted Victoria Legal Aid and sought assistance. 

   
   

   He says that he called them some three or four months ago and was told, words to the effect that his application was being processed. 

   
   

   He assures me that it is only last Friday that definitive notice was received from Victoria Legal Aid that he would not be represented. 

   
   

   He seeks an adjournment of one month to enable such representation

   
   

   to take place.

4. Counsel for the First Respondent opposed the adjournment.  It was put that this was made without notice as is clearly the case.  Counsel pointed to the lengthy period of time available to the applicant

   
   

   to obtain representation, and submitted that another month is not likely to make any difference.

5. Even on the applicant’s own version of events, he left the matter from November last year, or thereabouts, until some three to four months ago, which would take us back at the most to April.  So there was

   
   

   a delay of four to five months before there was any intermittent contact with Victoria Legal Aid.  This is simply not a satisfactory way

   
   

   to conduct proceedings which one would have felt would have been

   
   

   at the absolute forefront of the applicant’s attention.

6. The High Court has made it plain in the Aon Risk Management case that such issues as the Court’s time and the availability of listing dates is not irrelevant to such matters.  I approach that with the caveat that self-represented people in the circumstances of this applicant face particular difficulties and the proceedings self-evidently have

   
   

   a particular intensity in terms of outcome for them.

7. But really the explanation for the delay in endeavours to obtain representation is completely unsatisfactory and like counsel for the first respondent, I do not think that a further month is likely to make any difference.  In the circumstances I decline to adjourn the proceeding.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Burchardt

Associate: 

Date:  10 August 2015