Ogawa v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1212

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ogawa v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1212

MEGUMI OGAWA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1388 OF 2006

COWDROY J
22 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1388 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MEGUMI OGAWA
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed. 

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,000. 

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	NSD 1388 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MEGUMI OGAWA
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	COWDROY J
DATE:	22 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. First directions in these proceedings were to take place this afternoon at 4.00 pm, having been postponed on two prior occasions. The appellant, who is currently in Queensland, was to appear via video conference link which had been arranged by the Court.

   
   

   I am informed that the appellant was notified by letter of the arrangement that had been made for today. I should add that the Court has gone to considerable trouble to arrange the video link to meet the wishes and the convenience of the appellant.

2. The appellant has failed to appear. She has been contacted by telephone and it is apparent that she is well aware that the Court was sitting this afternoon to hear the first directions in her appeal. Despite that fact, she has indicated that she chose not to appear. She has given no valid reason for her non-appearance.

3. The Court has power, under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to dismiss an appeal because of failure of an appellant to attend a hearing relating to the appeal. I would normally be reluctant to strike out a matter without hearing from the appellant. However, where, as in this case, the appellant has deliberately chosen not to appear, even though the Court has made special arrangements for her, I consider that it is appropriate that the appeal be struck out.

4. Accordingly, I will order that the appeal be dismissed. I will also order that the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,000.

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

Associate:

Dated:        22 August 2006

Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant did not appear.
Counsel for the Respondent:	E Palmer (solicitor)
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	22 August 2006
Date of Judgment:	22 August 2006