SHEEH v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

[2014] FCCA 2452

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SHEEH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 2452

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant at scheduled hearing – application dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth)rr.13.03C, 44.12.

Applicant: MANPREET SINGH SHEEH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2128 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Emmett

Hearing date: 17 October 2014

Date of Last Submission: 17 October 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 17 October 2014

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms Natasha Blake (Clayton Utz)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2128 of 2014

MANPREET SINGH SHEEH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The first respondent seeks an order that the proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 29 July 2014, be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Rules2001 (Cth) (“the Rules”) by reason of the failure of the applicant to appear at today’s scheduled hearing.

2. I note that the applicant appeared at a first court date directions hearing before me on 26 August 2014. On that occasion, I explained to the applicant that this Court has no power to interfere with the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the MRT”) unless the Court is satisfied that the MRT’s decision is affected by a mistake that goes to its jurisdiction.

3. I also explained to the affidavit the cost consequences that may flow if the applicant was unsuccessful before this Court and provided to him a copy of that relevant cost schedule. The applicant confirmed that he wished to continue with his application for judicial review of the MRT’s decision dated 27 June 2014. The applicant was provided at that directions hearing with the contact details of legal services providers and interpreting and translation services in documents headed in his own language.

4. The applicant was given leave to file and serve an amended application giving complete particulars of each ground of review relied upon, together with any evidence by way of affidavit and submissions in support by 19 September 2014. There have been no documents filed by or on behalf of the applicant either in accordance with those directions or otherwise.

5. The matter was listed today for hearing pursuant to r.44.12 of the Rules, and a copy of which was given to the applicant. The applicant also signed an acknowledgement of receipt of the orders made at the directions hearing on 26 August 2014, which were interpreted for him.

6. I further note that on 9 September 2014, the Court wrote to the applicant at the applicant’s address for service in Australia, providing him with the details of the change of the location of the courtroom in which his matter would be heard today.

7. There has been no communication received from the applicant by this Court seeking a further adjournment of today’s scheduled directions hearing or for any other reason.

8. The matter was listed for 10.00am this morning. The matter has been called outside on at least two occasions, the most recent being less than five minutes ago.

9. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of today’s hearing and for whatever reason, has chosen not to attend.

10. I am satisfied that the orders sought by the first respondent are appropriate and accordingly, the proceeding for this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 29 July 2014, should be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Rules by reason for failure of the applicant to appear at today’s scheduled hearing, with costs.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett

Associate:

Date:              27 October 2014