S2001 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 362
•4 February 2005
| S2001 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 362 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – no legal grounds for review – failure to comply with orders of the Court – application summarily dismissed. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
| Applicant: | APPLICANT S2001 of 2003 |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SYG615 OF 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 4 February 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 4 February 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Mowbray FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Advocate for the Applicants | In person |
| Advocate for the Respondent | Mr Kettle |
| Solicitors for the Respondent | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
(1)The application filed on 8 March 2004 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03(2)(b).
(2)The applicants pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $1,200.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG615/2004
| APPLICANTS S2001 of 2003 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an ex tempore judgment which has been revised and edited from a transcript. It relates to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 16 November 1999 and handed down on that date.
The applicants who are citizens of Fiji arrived in Australia on 28 May 1999. They lodged applications for protection visas on 1 June 1999 with the Minister’s department. The applications were refused by a delegate of the Minister on 8 June 1999 and they applied for review before the Tribunal on 25 June 1999. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant the applicants protection visas.
In this matter the application was filed in this Court on 8 March 2004 followed by an amended application which contained the same terms as the original application but adding two new parties. The application and amended application disclosed no legal grounds for review.
There was a directions hearing held on 7 July 2004 at which stage the first and second applicants consented to orders requiring them to provide an amended application by 1 October 2004. Notice was then given in those orders that, if the applicants failed to comply with the requirement to file an amended application, the matter could be listed for summary dismissal.
On 12 January 2005 the applicants were advised by the respondent that it proposed to seek dismissal for failure to comply with the orders of the Court. The applicants agree that they have had access to a Court appointed legal adviser who provided advice in August 2004.
At the directions hearing before me the applicants have been unable to provide any real ground or reason for their failure to comply with the Court order. Nor were they able to indicate that there is any real prospect that an amended application would be filed with the Court disclosing viable legal grounds for reviewing the decision of the Tribunal.
In the circumstances it is appropriate that the matter be summarily dismissed for failure to comply with the orders of the Court pursuant to Rule 13.03(2)(b).
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Mowbray FM
Associate: Kelisiana Thynne
Date: 4 April 2005
0
0
0