MZZZJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Case [2014] FCA 1218

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZZZJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1218

Citation: MZZZJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1218
Appeal from: Application for extension of time: MZZZJ & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 1792
Parties: MZZZJ and MZZZK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number: VID 442 of 2014
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 11 November 2014
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Date of hearing: 11 November 2014
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 4
Counsel for the Applicants: The Applicants did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr T Goodwin
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 442 of 2014
BETWEEN:

MZZZJ
First Applicant

MZZZK
Second Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MIDDLETON J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 NOVEMBER 2014

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an extension of time is refused.

2.The applicants pay the costs of the first respondent.

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 442 of 2014
BETWEEN:

MZZZJ
First Applicant

MZZZK
Second Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MIDDLETON J

DATE:

11 NOVEMBER 2014

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicants in this matter seek an extension of time to appeal from orders made in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 3 July 2014.  The Federal Circuit Court dismissed an application made by the applicants for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (‘the Tribunal’) dated 19 December 2013. The applicants proposed to raise a single ground of appeal, if granted an extension of time to appeal, namely that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by not inviting the applicants to comment on or respond to certain information pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). It is to be noted that this argument was not raised before the Federal Circuit Court.

  2. When the matter was called on before me no appearance was made by either applicant seeking to prosecute the application.  Mr Tim Goodwin of Counsel for the first respondent has informed me of some discussions that took place in relation to the applicants last week, but none of the information that he has provided, which is on transcript, indicates any satisfactory reason for the applicants not to be here.  If an adjournment was to be sought, then communication should have been made to the Court, or an application made today in the appropriate manner.  No such communication or application has been made.

  3. I am satisfied that the applicants knew that the hearing would proceed today at 2.15pm and there is no explanation at all for their failure to appear today. In those circumstances, the Court has the power under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to order the application to the Court be dismissed for failure of the applicants to attend the hearing relating to the application. In addition, if a party is absent when a matter is called on for hearing, the opposing party may apply to the Court for an order that the application be dismissed. The first respondent has sought by application that the application be dismissed.

  4. In the circumstances, where there is no explanation for the failure to attend the hearing, I will dismiss the application with costs and so order.  If either of the applicants wish to agitate the matter, they will need to make the appropriate application to the Court.  I will order that:

    (1)The application for an extension of time is refused.

    (2)The applicants pay the costs of the first respondent.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Middleton.

Associate:

Dated:       11 November 2014

Details
AGLC
MZZZJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1218
Case
[2014] FCA 1218
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved MZZZJ, an individual seeking asylum, and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. MZZZJ sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of the Minister's decision to cancel their visa. The dispute centred on the validity and timeliness of MZZZJ's application and whether the court should grant an extension under the Federal Court Rules 2011. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether to grant MZZZJ an extension of time to file their application for judicial review.

The primary legal issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for filing the application under Rule 39.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. This required the court to consider MZZZJ's reasons for the delay and whether there were any exceptional circumstances justifying an extension. The court had to balance MZZZJ's right to seek judicial review against the principles of finality and the orderly administration of justice. The court also had to consider the Minister's argument that the application was filed well beyond the prescribed time limit and that MZZZJ had not demonstrated any special circumstances warranting an extension.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that it would not exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for MZZZJ's application. The court found that MZZZJ had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to time limits for filing applications for judicial review and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The court further held that the delay had caused inconvenience to the Minister and had the potential to prejudice the orderly administration of justice. Consequently, the court refused MZZZJ's application for an extension of time. In addition, the court ordered that MZZZJ pay the costs of the Minister.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time is refused.

2. The applicants pay the costs of the first respondent.

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.