MZYNK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] FCA 542

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZYNK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 542

Citation:		MZYNK  v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 542
Appeal from:		MZYNK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FMCA 994
Parties:		MZYNK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and LUKE HARDY IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER
File number:		VID 1405 of 2011
Judge:		BROMBERG J
Date of judgment:		15 May 2012
Legislation:		Federal Court Rules2011 O 36.75
Cases cited:		MZYNK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FMCA 994
Date of hearing:	15 May 2012
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	5
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr W Mosley
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 1405 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MZYNK
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

LUKE HARDY IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	BROMBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 MAY 2012
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The costs of the first respondent be paid by the appellant.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 1405 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MZYNK
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

LUKE HARDY IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	BROMBERG J
DATE:	15 MAY 2012
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate (published as MZYNK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FMCA 994), in which the Federal Magistrate dismissed the appellant’s application for a declaration that a decision of an independent merits reviewer appointed by the first respondent (“the Reviewer”) was not made in accordance with law and for an injunction restraining the first respondent from relying upon the recommendation of the Reviewer.

2. The matter was called on this morning and the appellant has not appeared.  I am advised by counsel for the first respondent that the appellant is not in detention, that he was released on 28 March 2012 and that the first respondent’s information is that the appellant’s case manager made the appellant aware of today’s hearing date.  Furthermore, it appears that the Court has notified the appellant of today’s hearing date.

3. Order 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules provides that if a party is absent when an appeal is called on for hearing, the opposing party may apply to the Court for an order that, where the absent party is the appellant, the appeal be dismissed. The first respondent has made such an application.

4. Given the absence of the appellant, it seems to me appropriate that I should assent to the application that the appeal be dismissed. 

5. The Court will make the following orders:

   1.The appeal be dismissed.

   2.The costs of the first respondent be paid by the appellant.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg.

Associate:

Dated:        28 May 2012