Potier v Hannigan (No 2)

[2015] FCA 1455

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Potier v Hannigan (No 2) [2015] FCA 1455

Citation:	Potier v Hannigan (No 2) [2015] FCA 1455
Parties:	MALCOLM HUNTLEY POTIER v REGISTRAR PADDY HANNIGAN, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
File number:	NSD 1558 of 2015
Judge:	MARKOVIC J
Date of judgment:	17 December 2015
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 r 5.23(1)(b)(i)
Date of hearing:	17 December 2015
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	2
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Mr A Markus of Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1558 of 2015

BETWEEN:

MALCOLM HUNTLEY POTIER
Applicant

AND:

REGISTRAR PADDY HANNIGAN
First Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
Second Respondent

THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	MARKOVIC J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 DECEMBER 2015
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to r 5.23(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the proceedings be dismissed immediately.

2.The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the proceedings

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1558 of 2015

BETWEEN:

MALCOLM HUNTLEY POTIER
Applicant

AND:

REGISTRAR PADDY HANNIGAN
First Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
Second Respondent

THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	MARKOVIC J
DATE:	17 DECEMBER 2015
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter came on for a case management hearing today at 9.30 am.  It was called outside the Court.  There was no appearance on behalf of the applicant.  The second respondent filed in Court an affidavit affirmed by Louise Bernadette Buchanan today in which Ms Buchanan gives evidence that she has been informed by an officer of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection that the applicant departed Australia on the afternoon of 15 December 2015.  A screenshot of an electronic database held by the Department annexed to Ms Buchanan’s affidavit confirms that is the case. 

2. The second respondent has applied for an order pursuant to r 5.23(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (the Rules) that the proceeding be dismissed immediately on the basis that the applicant is in default. The relevant default, pursuant to r 5.22(c) of the Rules, is that the applicant has failed to attend a hearing in the proceeding, namely the directions hearing this morning. The second respondent also applies for his costs of the proceedings. He does so on the basis of the findings made by me in an interlocutory application filed by the applicant and determined earlier this week that the proceedings filed by the applicant were of no utility.

   In the circumstances, I am prepared to make the orders sought by the second respondent.  I make the following orders:

   (1)Pursuant to r 5.23(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Court Rules, the proceedings be dismissed immediately.

   (2)The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Markovic.

Associate: 

Dated:        18 December 2015