Singh v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 1359

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 1359

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – application made on day of hearing– factors for consideration.

MIGRATION – Judicial review – decision of Migration Review Tribunal – temporary partner visa application.

Applicant: ISHWINDER SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 188 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Antoni Lucev

Hearing date: 20 June 2014 (by video-link to Melbourne)

Date of Last Submission: 20 June 2014

Delivered at: Perth

Delivered on: 20 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In person

Counsel for the First Respondent:

For the Second Respondent:

Mr J Hutton

Submitting appearance, save as to costs.

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The applicant’s oral application in a case for an adjournment is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

MLG 188 of 2014

ISHWINDER SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Edited ex tempore reasons)

1. There is before the Court this morning an oral application in a case for adjournment of a show cause hearing which was listed on 7 May 2014 for hearing before the Court today.  The Court in determining whether or not to adjourn a matter looks to several issues, but essentially the matter is one in the discretion of the Court, having regard in particular to issues such as case management, prejudice to the party not seeking the adjournment, the merits of the substantive application and the interests of justice.

2. Suffice it to say that this Court is the nation’s busiest Federal trial court and that this matter has now been listed for a number of weeks for the hearing today.  There has been no indication from the respondent previously to the Court that he intends to seek an adjournment of today’s hearing and in those circumstances that weighs against the Court granting an adjournment.  There is no indication from the Minister that the he suffers any particular prejudice by reason of the adjournment application, save the normal prejudice associated with having prepared for and thrown away costs in relation to today’s hearing.

3. The Court bears in mind that it would appear that the applicant has applied for what is known as a 457 visa which would enable him to continue to reside and work in Australia.  The Court also has to have regard to the merits of the existing application and it should be said that the 457 visa process has no impact upon or relationship to the current visa application before the Court for review. The Court also have to have some regard to the merits of the application presently before the Court albeit that that is now before the Court on a show cause basis. It is apparent on the face of the papers presently before the Court, and without going into the merits in any detail in relation to the substantive application, that there is no significant merit in the application.

4. In the above circumstances the Court is of the view that it is not appropriate to adjourn today’s proceedings and dismisses the application in a case made orally this morning by the applicant for an adjournment. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Antoni Lucev

Associate: 

Date: 25 June 2014