NBLQ v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 869
•6 June 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| NBLQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 869 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of MRT decision affirming a decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant a Bridging visa – applicant a citizen of Israel – applicant in Immigration Detention after overstaying earlier bridging visa – no current application for a substantive visa. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Dismissal for non-appearance – where applicant refused to attend court. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.475A Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001, r.13.03A |
| Applicant: | NBLQ |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 1262 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 6 June 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 6 June 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 6 June 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) due to the non-attendance by the Applicant at Court.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,600.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1262 of 2005
| NBLQ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application to review a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal handed down on 22 April 2005 affirming a decision that the applicant was not entitled to be granted a bridging visa.
The application was listed for final hearing before me today at
10.15am. The applicant is currently an inmate at the Immigration Detention Centre at Villawood. He has not attended at Court today, although he would have come under escort. Ms Watson who appears for the respondent has telephoned the detention centre and has received the rather surprising news that the applicant is not coming, that he has refused to attend Court.
I see no reason to disbelieve what Ms Watson tells me. I do not propose to adjourn the matter in case the applicant has a change of mind or a change of heart. Court time is precious and if a person refuses to take advantage of an opportunity given to him to attend Court and present his case, I do not see why the Court should grant any further indulgence which would only mean that some other case would not be able to get on so quickly.
The applicant has not attended. It is now 10.39 am. The application will be dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03A(c) due to the non attendance by the applicant at Court.
The respondent seeks an order for costs in the sum of $3600.
As Ms Watson pointed out the matter had to be prepared on the basis that it was a contested hearing. Indeed, the respondent had no choice. The matter was listed for final hearing today and had the applicant chosen to attend then I would have expected the respondent to be ready to meet the applicant's case and present a case for a hearing on a final basis.
The fact that the applicant has chosen not to attend means that the work otherwise done for preparation of the case has been wasted.
I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate:
Date: 17 June 2005
0
0
3