Palla v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 1850

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PALLA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 1850

MIGRATION – Dismissal of application – non-attendance – non-compliance with orders of the Court.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Non-compliance with orders.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.116
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, ss.13.03 A (c), 13.03.2(6)

Applicant: JAIPAL REDDY PALLA

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: MLG 825 of 2005

Judgment of: Connolly FM

Hearing date: 12 December 2005

Date of Last Submission: 8 December 2005

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 13 December 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitors for the Applicant: No Appearance

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Tom Mosby

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The Application be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03 A (c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 on the basis that the Applicant has failed to appear.

2. The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of an incidental to this motion.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 825 of 2005

JAIPAL REDDY PALLA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings were initiated by way of an application filed on

   
   

   11 July 2005 seeking to review a decision to cancel a standard Temporary Class (TC) visa under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth.) The basis for the application is particularised out although from the letter attached to the application he appears to be saying that he was not given an opportunity to appeal against the decision of the Faculty Academic Progress committee with respect to the question of his exam results.

2. On 2 August 2005, Registrar Agnew made orders which required the Applicant to, inter alia file and serve an amended application with proper particulars by 26 August 2005 and contentions of fact and law by 3 October 2005. By 12 October 2005 the Applicant had filed neither and the Respondent forwarded a letter on the same date to the Applicant telling him that he had not complied with the Orders of Registrar Agnew and that unless he attend to the filing of the required documents by 26 October 2005 that it expected to receive instructions to apply for summary dismissal of the application.

3. The applicant has not provided the amended application nor the contentions of fact and law and the Respondent has on 8 December 2005 filed a Notice of Motion seeking that the Application be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03.2(6) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 on the basis that the Applicant failed to comply with the Orders of Registrar Agnew made on 2 August 2005. The Notice of Motion was served on the Applicant on 8 December 2005 and the Affidavit of Tom Mosby, a solicitor in the employ of Clayton Utz sworn 7 December 2005 was served on the Applicant on 7 December 2005.

4. The Applicant did not attend this day and in all the circumstances

   
   

   I propose to dismiss the Application pursuant to Part 13, Rule 13.03 A (c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 noting that I am entitled to dismiss the matter for non-compliance with the Orders of the Court. It is appropriate in the circumstances that the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Connolly FM

Associate:  James Naughton

Date:  12 December 2005