Nukavarapu v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 3163

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NUKAVARAPU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 3163

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Judgment – application to have default judgment set aside for rehearing – applicant fails to attend.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: KISHORE NUKAVARAPU

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: ADG 121 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Simpson

Hearing date: 14 October 2014

Date of Last Submission: 14 October 2014

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 14 October 2014

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms C Deegan for the Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

1. The Application in a Case filed by the Applicant on 22 September 2014 is dismissed.

2. The Applicant do forthwith pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADG 121 of 2014

KISHORE NUKAVARAPU

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Reasons settled from transcript)

1. I have before me an Application in a Case in which the Applicant seeks the following order.

   “I, Kishore Nukavarapu, was failed to attend the Court hearing on 3 September 2014.  Unfortunately, my dad was hospitalised on 2 September 2014 night and had an emergency heart surgery.  That news make me mentally disturbed and planned to fly overseas.  I am requesting to Federal Circuit Court to reopen my file and will definitely attend hearing this time.  The news made me mentally disturbed, and I did not attend the Court.”

2. That application was filed on 22 September.  When it was filed, it was given a date and time, namely, 3.30pm today.  The substantive cause of action is an application for judicial review of the Migration Review Tribunal.  That application was filed on 10 April 2014 and dismissed on 14 October 2014 when the Applicant failed to appear.

3. It would appear that the Application in a Case was intended to be the first step in having a rehearing of the substantive application.  Unfortunately, the Applicant again failed to appear.  The Applicant’s name has been called three times, and he does not appear.  We have also attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone on a number of occasions, starting, I think, at 3.30pm.  It is now 3.50pm, and there have been no answers to the telephone call. 

4. In the circumstances, I think it appropriate to simply dismiss the Application in a Case filed on 22 September 2014.

5. I will make a further order that the Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs of and in relation to the Application in a Case fixed in the sum of $500.

6. I make the orders to be found at the beginning of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Simpson

Associate: 

Date: 6 May 2015