SINGH v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 3182

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 3182

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Judicial review – application for reinstatement after the applicant failed to appear at the first return date – applicant failed to appear again today – application dismissed.

Legislation:

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

Applicant: HARPEJ SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 879 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Harland

Hearing date: 19 November 2015

Date of Last Submission: 19 November 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 19 November 2015

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr McDermott

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application in a case filed on 24 August 2015 is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03(C)(1)(d) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $1,000.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 879 of 2015

HARPEJ SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally.  They have been corrected from the transcript.  Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. This matter is in Court today because the applicant filed an application in a case seeking reinstatement of his application for judicial review, which was dismissed by the Registrar on the first return date pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) for non-appearance by the applicant. The applicant filed an application in a case seeking reinstatement of his application on the basis that he had made a mistake about the first return date. He refers to mistakenly believing that the directions hearing was listed on 26 August 2015 instead of 19 August 2015.

3. The solicitor for the Minister has helpfully provided a Court Book and written submissions.  Although not strictly necessary, given there were no directions for a Court Book, it is very helpful because it clearly shows on page 1 of the Court Book that the notice of filing and hearing refers to 19 August 2015 at 10:00am.  There is no reference anywhere on the application to the date of 26 August 2015.  It is not apparent how such a mistake could be made.  Furthermore, on page 9 of the Court Book is a letter dated 5 May 2015 from the Australian Government Solicitor addressed to the applicant at his residential address, being the address that the applicant included on his application, where it clearly says in bold that the directions hearing is on 19 August 2015 at 10 am.

4. That letter also urges the applicant to seek legal advice and provides contact phone numbers for Victoria Legal Aid and the Law Institute of Victoria, pointing out the complexity of these types of proceedings.  If the applicant had attended today, he would have had to have gotten over a threshold issue as to whether or not he had given an adequate explanation for the delay and also that he had an arguable case.  This is the second time that the applicant has not attended Court, taking up court time that could have been used for other matters.

5. In the circumstances I am going to dismiss the application for want of appearance pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(d) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules.

6. The solicitor for the Minister seeks costs in the sum of $1,000.  That is well below the scale for an application in a case.  He seeks this in addition to the previous amount of costs that was made by the Registrar.  In circumstances where the solicitor has gone to the trouble of preparing a court book and written submissions that fee is very reasonable.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Harland

Associate: 

Date:  30 November 2015