Singh v Minister for Home Affairs

Case [2018] FCA 1726

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1726

Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCCA 1999
File number(s): NSD 1391 of 2018
Judge(s): FARRELL J
Date of judgment: 8 November 2018
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25
Date of hearing: 8 November 2018
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms A Carr
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent submitted save as to costs

ORDERS

NSD 1391 of 2018
BETWEEN:

SURJEET SINGH

Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

FARRELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 NOVEMBER 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal is dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

2.The applicant must 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

FARRELL J

  1. This proceeding was scheduled for hearing at 2:15 pm today.  In the awareness that the applicant had not appeared at that time, the Court convened at around 2:22 pm.  At that time, the matter was called and the Court Officer reported no appearance from the applicant.

  2. Counsel for the Minister has advised the Court that her instructing solicitor attempted to call the applicant at the number held by the Minister’s representative at 2:24 pm and 2:26 pm and the attempts failed when the calls were diverted to voicemail.

  3. The Minister has supplied a copy of a letter dated 1 November 2018 advising Mr Singh that the matter was listed for hearing today at 2:15 pm.  He was also advised that if he did not attend on that occasion that the Minister would seek orders from the Court that the matter be dismissed and that he pay the Minister’s legal costs of the proceedings.

  4. Counsel for the Minister submitted that the Court should make an order under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed for failure of the applicant to attend the hearing relating to his application. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make that order.

  5. I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs as agreed or taxed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Farrell.

Associate

Dated:        12 November 2018

Details
AGLC
Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1726
Case
[2018] FCA 1726
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Singh sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Minister for Home Affairs, which had refused his application for a visa. The Federal Court was called upon to determine the merits of Singh’s application for leave to appeal. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Singh’s appeal had prospects of success. The Court was also required to consider whether Singh’s appeal raised a question of law of general public importance, and whether the appeal ought to be heard by the Full Court.

In dismissing the application, the Court found that Singh had not demonstrated that his appeal had prospects of success. The Court was not satisfied that Singh had established that the primary judge had erred in law or failed to take into account a relevant consideration. The Court also found that the appeal did not raise a question of law of general public importance. The Court noted that the appeal was largely concerned with the merits of the primary judge’s decision, and that Singh had not identified any broader legal issue that warranted further consideration by the Full Court. As such, the Court held that Singh’s appeal did not satisfy the criteria for leave to appeal as set out in section 25(2B) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

The Court ordered that Singh’s application for leave to appeal be dismissed. The Court also ordered that Singh pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed, in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The Court held that the first respondent was entitled to costs as the applicant had not succeeded in his application for leave to appeal. The Court noted that the amount of costs was to be agreed between the parties or, if they were unable to agree, taxed by the Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

2. The applicant must 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.

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.