NAJZ v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 1117
•28 July 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| NAJZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 1117 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by applicant. |
| Applicant: | NAJZ |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1757 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 28 July 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 28 July 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 28 July 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | In Person |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
The Application is dismissed under rule 13.03A (c) due to the non-attendance by the applicant at Court.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $800.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1757 of 2008
| NAJZ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
The application before the Court is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which, according to the application, was dated 12 June 2008. The applicant claims to have been notified of the decision the following day, 13 June. The Tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction because it had already reviewed the decision and indeed it is clear that the Tribunal's earlier decision has been the subject of judicial review in this Court on more than one prior occasion.
The Minister has filed a response pointing out that the applicant has instituted other judicial review proceedings in relation to a previous decision, all of which have been dismissed and refers to those various decisions, however, the applicant has not attended Court today. The application was filed on 9 July 2008 returnable at 10.15 am today. When the matter was called the applicant did not appear. I called the matter at 10.25 am. I stood the matter in the list and called the matter again at 10.45 am.
There is no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. No message has been received from the applicant or anyone on his behalf indicating that he has in some way been hindered or delayed or prevented from attending Court due to illness, injury or transport emergency. The applicant has just not appeared. It is also a matter of some concern that I am informed by Ms Regidor, solicitor, who appears for the Minister today that a letter was forwarded to the applicant at the address for service given on the application but that letter was returned unclaimed.
It appears that the applicant may have left that address but no further notice of address for service has been filed. As to why that has happened, or where the applicant has gone, they are matters that the Court has no knowledge of. There is an application for the application to be dismissed under rule 13.03A(c) because the applicant has not attended Court. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate application and I propose to make this order.
I am also asked for an order for costs on behalf of the 1st respondent Minister in the sum of $800. That appears to me to be an appropriate amount and it is certainly appropriate for a costs order to be made. The Minister's solicitor has appeared. A response has been filed and indeed an affidavit in support of that response has been filed and quite clearly the Minister is prepared to meet the application and if necessary deal with it today. This is an appropriate matter for a costs order and it the sum of $800 is an appropriate figure.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: A. Coutman
Date: 18 August 2008
0
0
0