Singh v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 553

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 553

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant at scheduled hearing – application dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

Legislation: 

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 13.013C(1)(c)

Applicant: GURMEET SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2559 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Emmett

Hearing date: 13 June 2013

Date of Last Submission: 13 June 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 13 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant.

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr. R Baird, (Clayton Utz)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 2559 of 2012

GURMEET SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex Tempore

Introduction

1. The first respondent seeks an order pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules (Cth) on the basis that the application or the proceeding before this Court commenced by way of application, filed on 7 November 2012, be dismissed by reason of the applicant’s failure to appear at today’s scheduled hearing.

2. In support, the first respondent’s solicitor, Mr Baird, tendered two letters.   The first, a copy of a letter sent to the first respondent’s solicitors, dated 31 May 2013, from my chambers, and marked Exhibit 1R. That letter provided the location of the courtroom in which the matter was to be heard today. That letter also notes that the matter was copied to the applicant at the only address provided by the applicant on his application. 

3. I note that that on the court file, there is a copy of that letter from the Court to Mr Singh at his address, informing him of the location of the courtroom for today’s hearing. 

4. Mr Baird also tendered a letter, dated 6 June 2013, being a copy of the letter to Mr Singh, to the same address, enclosing the first respondent’s outline of submission and informing the applicant of the correct address of today’s hearing. The letter advised Mr Singh that if he does not attend the hearing the first respondent would seek to have his matter dismissed with costs. That letter was marked Exhibit 2R.

5. The applicant attended a directions hearing before me on 14 February 2013.  On that occasion, the applicant was given leave to file and serve an amended application and any evidence by way of affidavit by 7 March 2013, and to file and serve written submissions in support of his application 14 days before today’s hearing.  The matter was set down for final hearing today at 10.15am.  The address in the Court’s directions made on 14 February 2013, was that the courtroom would be located at Terrace Tower, 80 William Street, Sydney.  Subsequently, the letters referred to above, were sent to the applicant advising him of the location of the courtroom.

6. I am informed by Mr Baird that there has been no communication received by the applicant seeking adjournment of today’s hearing or for any other reason.

7. There has been no document filed by the applicant or on behalf of the applicant either in accordance with the Court’s directions made on 14 February 2013, or otherwise. 

8. I am satisfied that the notice sent to the applicant of the relocation of the hearing matter today was sent in sufficient time for the applicant to be aware of today’s proceeding.

9. Similarly, there has been no communication received by the Court from the applicant.

10. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant is aware, or should be aware, of today’s scheduled hearing and for whatever reason has chosen not to attend.

11. Accordingly, the proceeding before this Court commenced by way of application filed on 7 November 2012 should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett

Date:  13 June 2013