Sey, Samuel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs Summary

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:

SAMUEL SEY

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE(S):	LOCKHART
PLACE:	SYDNEY
DATED:	25 JULY 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter was specially fixed for hearing today some time ago. It is plain from the n to which I have been directed by the solicitor for the respondent and which I have 0th seen in the court file myself, that the applicant was well aware of the fact that the matl for hearing today. He has not appeared. The matter was first called shortly after 10. morning and there was no appearance on behalf of the applicant. The same pro produced the same result at 12.15 this afternoon. In all the circumstances I am satisfi the application should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court orders that the applical dismissed.

The applicant shall pay the costs of the respondent including any reserved costs. I dir respondent to send to the last known address of the applicant on or before Monday, 2 1997 a letter informing him of today's order and of the provisions of Order 35 rule 7 5 2 paragraph (a).

I certify that this page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lockhart

Fam+u. CQllRT W

r &-

AI -I

fir

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Samuel Sey, the applicant, filed an application against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the respondent, in the Federal Court of Australia. The nature of the dispute pertained to an immigration matter, though the specifics of the case are not detailed in the excerpt provided. The case was heard in the General Division of the Federal Court, New South Wales District Registry. The central issue before the court was whether the application should be dismissed due to the applicant's non-appearance at the scheduled hearing. The court needed to determine if there were any justifiable reasons for the applicant's absence and whether proceeding in his absence would be appropriate.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the applicant's failure to appear and noted that the applicant was well aware of the hearing date. Despite the matter being specially fixed for hearing, the applicant did not make an appearance at either the morning or afternoon sittings. Justice Lockhart was satisfied, based on the information available, that the application should be dismissed due to the applicant's non-appearance. The court concluded that no further action could be taken in the applicant's absence without causing undue delay or prejudice to the respondent.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the application be dismissed. The applicant was also required to pay the costs of the respondent, including any reserved costs. Additionally, the court directed the respondent to inform the applicant of the court's order and the relevant provisions of Order 35 rule 7(5)(a) by sending a letter to the applicant's last known address by a specified date. This decision underscored the importance of attendance at scheduled hearings and the consequences of failing to do so in the context of immigration applications.

Sey, Samuel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established