Singh v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 2360

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 2360

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Oral application for adjournment – application refused.

Applicant: GAGANDEEP SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 1953 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge McGuire

Hearing date: 31 August 2015

Date of Last Submission: 31 August 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 31 August 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: In Person

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms Briffa

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

1. The oral application for an adjournment is hereby dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1953 of 2014

GAGANDEEP SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. The substantive application before me is for the judicial review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).

2. Mr Singh, the applicant, appears in person. He appears without an interpreter and I am satisfied that I can understand Mr Singh and I am confident that he can understand me.

3. During the course the preliminary discussions between myself and Mr Singh as to the nature of his application, and my role of hearing a review of the Tribunal’s decision as distinct from a hearing de novo, Mr Singh then made a statement which I interpreted as being an oral application seeking an adjournment and I clarified with Mr Singh that this was the case. Mr Singh is seeking an adjournment for three to four months in order to obtain alternative legal assistance. My understanding of Mr Singh’s submissions is that he had previous legal assistance but that was terminated some month or so ago.

4. The oral application for an adjournment is opposed.

5. This matter was listed for hearing by the Registrar by orders and directions of the 17 December 2014.

6. Counsel for the respondent submitted that as a matter of course, and I am aware that this is the case, that upon listing of the matters, certain advice in writing is given to applicants including the provision of legal services in the broader sense of community legal aid centres including telephone numbers and addresses.

7. When asked as to what efforts the applicant had made to obtain alternative legal advice and assistance in the interim period Mr Singh was somewhat vague. In my view, it appears he has made at least one contact but gives no positive indications of any optimistic anticipation of obtaining alternative legal assistance.

8. This matter has been listed, as I have said, now for some nine months. Mr Singh is the applicant. On the face of it, he is aware of the nature of his application. Significantly, he has had previous legal advice apparently until up to a month ago and therefore for some seven or so months of this matter being listed. I infer that no prior notice has been given to the respondent of the oral application that comes before the Court today. In my view, there is no merit to the application for an adjournment and the application is refused.

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

Date:  4 September 2015