Singh v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 1652

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 1652

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application in a case to reinstate application dismissed for failure to appear – proceeding previously dismissed for previous failure to appear.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03C(1)(c)

Applicant: SARBJEET SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 1156 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Wilson

Hearing date: 6 May 2016

Date of Last Submission: 6 May 2016

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 6 July 2016

REPRESENTATION

No appearance

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr T. Smyth

Solicitors for the
First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application in a case filed by the applicant on 13 April 2016 is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $1,706.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1156 of 2014

SARBJEET SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this application in a case, Sarbjeet Singh (“the applicant”) sought the following order –

   1.  The matter will reopen.[1]

   [1] Application in a case filed on 13 April 2016 at p.2.

2. The proceeding was fixed for final hearing and came on before me on

   
   

   6 May 2016.

3. Mr T. Smyth of counsel represented the first respondent, the

   
   

   Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (“the Minister”).

4. When the case was called on for hearing, the applicant did not appear.

5. The case was called outside of Court at 10.00 a.m. and despite the call, the applicant did not appear.

6. The applicant had previously failed to appear on 6 April 2016. On that day, the proceeding was dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) by reason of the failure of the applicant to attend.

7. The applicant had been given a number of indulgences. He chose not to prosecute his application on 6 May 2016.

8. As a result, and after the applicant had been contacted to alert him to the hearing this day, I dismissed his application.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Wilson

Date: 6 July 2016