Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2014] FCA 938

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 938

Citation:	Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 938
Appeal from:	Sidhu v Minister for Immigration [2014] FCCA 1323
Parties:	NARINDER SINGH SIDHU and NARWINDER KAUR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number:	SAD 106 of 2014
Judge:	BESANKO J
Date of judgment:	25 August 2014
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 36.75, 40.43, Schedule 3 Item 15
Date of hearing:	25 August 2014
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	6
Counsel for the Appellants:	The Appellants did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr P d’Assumpcao
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 106 of 2014

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

NARINDER SINGH SIDHU
First Appellant

NARWINDER KAUR
Second Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 AUGUST 2014
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellants pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,098.00.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 106 of 2014

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

NARINDER SINGH SIDHU
First Appellant

NARWINDER KAUR
Second Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE:	25 AUGUST 2014
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 24 April 2014.  There are two appellants, Mr Narinder Singh and Ms Narwinder Kaur.  The appellants’ notice of appeal is dated 14 May 2014 and it gives an address for service.  On 25 June 2014, the appellants were advised by letter from the National Appeals Registrar that their appeal was listed for hearing today, commencing at 10.15 am.

2. On 20 August 2014, the Australian Government Solicitor, acting for the first respondent, wrote to the first appellant and provided him with copies of the first respondent’s outline of submissions, chronology and list of authorities.  In addition, the Australian Government Solicitor drew the first appellant’s attention to the fact that the hearing was listed on 25 August 2014 at 10.15 am and that the first appellant was expected to attend the hearing.  The first respondent also advised the first appellant that, if he failed to attend, the first respondent may apply to have the matter dismissed in his absence with costs.  The first respondent’s letter went on to say the following:

   If you are not able to attend the hearing, you should apply to the Court for an adjournment.  The Court would usually require you to justify why you cannot attend the hearing.  Please note that our client is unlikely to consent to an adjournment if a medical certificate, without more, is sent to the Court around the time of the hearing.

3. At 8.23 am today, the first appellant sent an email to the Registry.  That email was in the following terms:

   Dear Register  This is Narinder Singh file number ADG 287 of 2013 want to inform you that I had hearing today at court due to some reason i couldn’t able attend the hearing.  Please feel free to contact for any further enquiries.  Thanks.

4. The Registry responded in the following terms:

   Dear Narinder 

   Can you please advise the Court why you will not be able to attend the hearing today?  You should supply any supporting documentation if you have any.  You should also include the AGS for the respondent in any correspondence to the Court,

   Regards

   SA Registry

   The first appellant made no further contact with the Registry. 

5. The appeal was called on at 10.15 am. There is no appearance by either appellant. Their names have been called in the precincts of the Court. Counsel for the first respondent applies for an order under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (“the Rules”) that the appeal be dismissed. The requirements of that rule are satisfied in that each appellant was absent when the appeal was called on for hearing. The appellants have not provided any explanation for their non-attendance this morning. I think it appropriate to make an order that the appeal be dismissed and I will so order.

6. Counsel for the first respondent applies for an order for costs and that is an appropriate order in the circumstances. He asks me to fix the costs in the sum of $4,098. Having regard to the provisions of r 40.43 and Item 15 in Schedule 3 of the Rules, that is an appropriate course to adopt.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko.

Associate:

Dated:       1 September 2014