Singh v Minister for Border Protection
[2017] FCA 138
•17 February 2017
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Singh v Minister for Border Protection [2017] FCA 138
Appeal from: Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCCA 1694 File number(s): VID1187 of 2016 Judge(s): NORTH J Date of judgment: 17 February 2017 Date of hearing: 17 February 2017 Registry: Victoria Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 6 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Smyth Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
VID1187 of 2016 BETWEEN: JASPREET SINGH
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
Respondent
JUDGE:
NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 FEBRUARY 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the application for an extension of tie and leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Circuit Court on 9 September 2016 is dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORTH J:
The applicant seeks an extension of time and leave to appeal from an order of the Federal Circuit Court dated 6 May 2016 dismissing his application in a case that his migration application filed on 29 June 2014 and discontinued by the applicant on 3 July 2015 be reinstated..
The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was listed for hearing today. Late last evening, the applicant sent an email to chambers and to the first respondent’s solicitors, attaching four documents. One document was a letter addressed to ‘Whom it may concern’ from Positive Solutions Psychological Services dated 16 February 2017, which stated:
Mr Jaspreet Singh presented at the office of Positive Solutions – Psychological Services on February 16, 2017. Mr Singh provided an account of his personal circumstances and the adverse impact on his psychological health and level of functioning. Mr Singh consulted his General Practitioner Dr John Bongiorno, who prescribed Diazepam (2mg) for the management of anxiety and stress. Mr Singh requested a psychology report, which will be prepared by Wednesday, February 22, 2017.
The applicant also forwarded a prescription from Dr John Bongiorno for diazepam. Then he forwarded a medical certificate from Dr Bongiorno dated 16 February 2017 certifying that the applicant will be unfit for five days as he is suffering from ‘medical condition’. Finally, the applicant forwarded a receipt for the consultation with Dr Bongiorno, also dated 16 February 2017.
Following receipt of those documents, the solicitors for the first respondent sent an email to the applicant indicating that it could be supposed the documents were in support of an application to adjourn the hearing listed for today. The email continued that if that was so, then the application for an adjournment would be opposed and that, in any event, the medical certificate was not adequate for the purposes of obtaining an adjournment. The first respondent’s solicitors did not receive a response to that email.
The applicant has not appeared at the hearing today. If the applicant intended the documents to support an application for an adjournment, then that application is refused. The medical certificate is inadequate to support such an application. It does not state that the applicant is unfit to attend court and it gives no indication of what particular medical condition the applicant suffers from. It might be supposed from the letter from Positive Solutions that the condition might be related to his psychological state. However, that is no more than surmise.
In the circumstances, the first respondent seeks an order that the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed pursuant to s 25 (2B) (bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and under rule 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. That application should be granted.
The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. Associate:
Dated: 17 February 2017
0
0
0