Singh v Minister for Immigration

[2019] FCCA 498

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2019] FCCA 498

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Visa – medical visa – extension of time – applicant failed to attend hearing – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03C(1)(c)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: ANOOP SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: ADG 91 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Heffernan

Hearing date: 30 January 2019

Date of Last Submission: 30 January 2019

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 30 January 2019

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms L Butler for the Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

1. The application for the extension of time filed 14 March 2017 is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant do forthwith pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,000).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADG 91 of 2017

ANOOP SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Settled from Transcript)

1. This is an application that was filed by the applicant on 14 March 2017 seeking judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant him a medical treatment subclass 602 visa.  On 27 April 2017, the Registrar listed this matter initially for hearing on 3 September 2018 and made various procedural orders.  They included leave to file and serve an amended application by 23 June 2017 and that the applicant had to file and serve an outline of submissions at least 10 business days prior to the hearing.

2. The application itself is posited on two bases.  Firstly, the applicant seeks to have judicial review of the decision of the AAT, but also appears to seek judicial review of the decision of the Minister not to intervene and grant him the visa.  It seems that what occurred was that the Department determined that it was not an application that was required to be sent to the Minister and so the Minister did not personally consider the application as to whether or not he should intervene.

3. The applicant filed the application outside the timeframe and it is well established by virtue of the legislation that an application for judicial review must be made to the Court within 35 days of the date of the Tribunal’s written decision.  The Tribunal made an oral decision in this matter on 8 December 2016 and accordingly, it was necessary for the applicant to file his application to this Court on or before 12 January 2017.  He clearly did not do so and the delay is in the order of two months.

4. So before the Court could consider the application for judicial review, it would have been necessary first to consider whether or not there should be an extension of time in relation to this matter. As I have noted, the applicant has failed to attend this morning. The matter was called three times outside the Court and he did not answer the call. The Minister has made an application pursuant to r.13.03C of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 that the application be dismissed pursuant to subparagraph (1)(c) on the basis that the applicant has not attended today.  The Minister also seeks his costs in relation to the matter. 

5. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the application of the Minister, both with respect to the dismissal of this matter and his request for costs. 

6. I make the orders to be found at the beginning of these reasons.

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

Associate: 

Date:  4 March 2019