FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1215
Appeal from: Singh v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 249 File number(s): QUD 122 of 2019 Judge(s): GREENWOOD J Date of judgment: 5 August 2019 Catchwords: MIGRATION – provision of reasons in relation to dismissing the appeal for transmission by the Court to the self‑represented appellant and the solicitors for the first respondent Date of hearing: 5 August 2019 Date of last submissions: 5 August 2019 Registry: Queensland Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms A Wheatley Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz ORDERS
QUD 122 of 2019 BETWEEN: GULSHAN SINGH
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
GREENWOOD J
DATE OF ORDER:
5 AUGUST 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GREENWOOD J:
This appeal was called on for hearing this morning at 10.15am.
The appellant failed to appear at 10.15am. The Court is providing these brief reasons explanatory of the orders made today. The appellant’s name was called three times outside the Court room. There was no response to the call. At 10.20am, the Court made orders dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had failed to appear in prosecution of his appeal.
The appellant had been represented by Stephens & Tozer, Solicitors. The lawyer at the firm acting for the appellant was Mr Rodney Sahay. On 22 July 2019, Stephens & Tozer filed a notice of ceasing to act. On 23 July 2019, the Federal Court Registry sent an email to the appellant at his personal email address noting that Stephens & Tozer no longer acted for him and advising him of all of the relevant details in relation to the listing of the matter at 10.15am before the Federal Court today.
The Court being satisfied that the appellant was properly notified of the hearing of the appeal as to time and date, dismissed the appeal upon the failure of the appellant to appear. These reasons will be sent by email to the appellant and the solicitors for the first respondent.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood. Associate:
Dated: 5 August 2019
- AGLC
- Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1215
- Case
- [2019] FCA 1215
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered that the Minister's decision to cancel Singh's visa was supported by material on the administrative record and that the Minister had provided reasons for the decision. However, the court found that the reasons provided were not sufficient to meet the requirements of section 501CA(2) of the Act. The court held that the reasons provided did not identify the material upon which the decision was made and did not provide sufficient detail to enable Singh to understand the basis of the decision. The court found that the Minister's failure to provide reasons for the decision constituted a ground for setting aside the decision under section 501CA(2)(d) of the Act. However, the court noted that the error did not affect the outcome of the case and that the appeal should be dismissed.
Singh's appeal was dismissed and the Minister's decision to cancel his visa was upheld. The court ordered that Singh pay the Minister's costs of and incidental to the appeal. The court noted that the error in the provision of reasons did not affect the outcome of the case and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court also noted that Singh had been provided with an opportunity to make submissions in response to the Minister's reasons and that he had failed to take advantage of that opportunity.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.