S1104 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1104 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2004] FMCA 1078

MIGRATION – Application to review decision by Refugee Review Tribunal – Applicant failed to appear when matter listed in non-compliance list – application dismissed.

Applicant:

APPLICANT S1104 of 2003

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No:

SYG749 of 2004

Delivered on:

17 December 2004

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

17 December 2004

Judgment of:

Barnes FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Nil

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Nil

Counsel for the Respondent:

Nil

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

That there being no appearance by the Applicant the application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
That pursuant to Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs set in the amount of $1,800 .
That the solicitor for the Respondent notify the Applicant of the Orders made today and the effect of Rule 16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules by letter sent by prepaid post to the address for service within seven days of today’s date.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG749 of 2004

APPLICANT S1104 OF 2003

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

This matter was placed in the non-compliance list at the request of the solicitor for the respondent who properly notified the applicant of the date and time. The applicant did not appear at 11:15am when the matter was listed or when the matter was called at 11:30am. The respondent seeks that the application be dismissed.
Given that the applicant has not appeared, the most appropriate way to proceed is to dismiss the application for review pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules (rather than to consider whether to dismiss it pursuant to Rule 13.03(2)(b)).
Otherwise the orders that the respondent seeks (including notification to the applicant of the effect of Rule 16.05) are appropriate.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Barnes FM

Associate:

Date: 2 March 2005.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In S1104 of 2003, the Applicant sought judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Immigration, who had refused to grant the Applicant a visa. The matter was heard by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, presided over by the Federal Magistrate. The primary issue before the court was whether the Minister’s decision was legally sound and whether there were any procedural errors that could warrant overturning the decision. The Applicant also raised concerns regarding the adequacy of reasons provided by the Minister.

The Federal Magistrate determined that the application was dismissed as the Applicant failed to appear before the court. The court noted that the Applicant had not engaged with the legal process, which led to the application being dismissed under Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. The court also ordered that the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs in the amount of $1,800 as per Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. Additionally, the court mandated that the Respondent’s solicitor inform the Applicant of the orders made and the implications of Rule 16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

Orders of the court

That there being no appearance by the Applicant the application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

That pursuant to Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs set in the amount of $1,800 .

That the solicitor for the Respondent notify the Applicant of the Orders made today and the effect of Rule 16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules by letter sent by prepaid post to the address for service within seven days of today’s date.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established