SINGH v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 2002

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 2002

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal – no appearance by the applicant – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rr.13.03C, 44.12, Sch. 1

Applicant: HARPREET SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 289 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 23 July 2014

Date of Last Submission: 23 July 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 23 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Appearing for the Respondents: Mr M Wiese

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The application made on 10 February 2014 is dismissed for

   
   

   non-appearance pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $3,326.00

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 289 of 2014

HARPREET SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me today an application made pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 10 February 2014 seeking review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal made on 16 January 2014, which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate to not grant the applicant a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa.

2. When the matter was called today there was no appearance by, or for, the applicant. On 7 May 2014 the matter was set down for a hearing pursuant to Part 44 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the Rules”) [r.44.12 of the Rules] and scheduled for 11am today. It is now past that time and there is no appearance by the applicant. In these circumstances, the Minister, through his representative, has asked that the matter be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Rules.

3. I note the following. The application to the Court was filed on 10 February 2014. The Court’s Registry gave notice on the face of the application that the matter was set down for the first Court date on 12 March 2014. The applicant appeared in person on that date and a number of orders were made for the progress of the applicant’s case. The matter was set down for mention at a callover on 7 May 2014.

4. On that date, the applicant again appeared in person. In the applicant’s presence the matter was set down for a show cause hearing pursuant to r.44.12 of the Rules today.

5. I have before me in evidence today a letter to the applicant from the Minister’s solicitors, sent on 16 July 2014 by express post to the address for service that the applicant provided to the Court on his application, and also in a document that was provided to the Court at the first Court date in this matter on 12 March 2014 (“RE1”). The letter reminds the applicant of the hearing today and puts the applicant on notice that if he failed to attend the hearing, either in person or by legal representative, the Minister would seek dismissal of the application in his absence.

6. In the circumstances, the Minister has made such an application. Taking into account both RE1 and the applicant’s attendance on the previous occasion at the Court, I am satisfied that the applicant had adequate and reasonable notice of the Court event today.

7. I am not aware of any communication from the applicant to the Court’s Registry notifying of any difficulty in attending today. There has been no application for an adjournment of the hearing today. The applicant’s absence remains unexplained. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate that the application be dismissed, as the Minister seeks.

   
   

8. It is also appropriate, in my view, that an order for costs also be made in this matter. There is nothing before the Court that would argue against the making of the order. As to the amount, having regard to what is set out in the relevant Schedule to Rules [Schedule 1, Part 3, Division 1], and to the work that has actually been done by the Minister’s solicitors, I am satisfied that the amount sought is a reasonable amount.

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

Associate: 

Date: 2 September 2014