NAHY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 1531

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAHY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1531

NAHY & NAHZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 1052 OF 2002

MOORE J
5 DECEMBER 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1052 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NAHY FIRST APPELLANT
NAHZ SECOND APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 DECEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellants pay the costs of the Respondent.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1052 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NAHY FIRST APPELLANT
NAHZ SECOND APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	5 DECEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Driver FM of 18 September 2002, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the Minister”) to refuse to grant the appellants a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). I have read the Tribunal’s decision and the reasons for judgment of Driver FM.

2. The appeal against the judgment of the Federal Magistrate was fixed for hearing for this morning at a directions hearing on 24 October 2002, though at that time, the appellants did not appear.  However, the appellants were sent a letter dated 25 October 2002 by the solicitors for the Minister.  That letter informed the appellants both of the hearing date of the appeal and also of the date upon which the appeal books would be settled by a Registrar of the Court, namely 30 October 2002.  It is apparent from the Court’s records that the appellants did appear at the conference before the Registrar on 30 October 2002.  I can infer that the appellants were made aware of the hearing date by the letter of 25 October 2002.  In all probability that hearing date would have been repeated again at the conference with the Registrar.

3. There has been no appearance by the appellants this morning.  I have been asked by Counsel for the Minister to dismiss the appeal under O 52 r 38A of the Federal Court Rules.  I propose, in the circumstances, to accede to that request.  Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal and order the appellants to pay the respondent’s costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:            10 December 2002

There was no appearance for the appellants.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G Kennett
Solicitor for the Respondent	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	5 December 2002
Date of Judgment:	5 December 2002