Singh v Minister for Immigration

[2019] FCCA 497

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2019] FCCA 497

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of Registrar’s decision to dismiss proceedings due to non-attendance – applicant failing to appear on application – application dismissed.

Legislation:

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

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: JASWANT SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: ADG 350 of 2018

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 N Milutinovic for Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The Application for Review filed 13 November 2018 is dismissed in default of appearance pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The Application in a Case filed 13 November 2018 is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

3. The applicant do forthwith pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500.00).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADG 350 of 2018

JASWANT SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Settled from transcript)

1. In this matter the applicant filed an application for judicial review on 4 September 2018. On 19 October 2018 the matter came before Registrar Parkyn for a procedural hearing. The applicant did not attend the hearing when it was called on and accordingly it was dismissed pursuant to r.13.03(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (‘the Rules’).

2. The applicant filed an application for review of that dismissal of the proceedings on 13 November 2018.  At the same time he filed an Application in a Case which effectively sought the same remedy as in the application for review of the Registrar’s decision.  This matter was listed for argument at 2.15 today.  I came on the bench at approximately 2.30pm and the applicant did not appear.  The matter was called three times in the precincts of the Court and the applicant did not answer the call.

3. Ms Milutinovic, for the first respondent, has tendered two documents to assist the Court with its satisfaction that the applicant was notified of the date and the time. 

4. The first is a letter from Sparke Helmore to the applicant at his last known address reminding him that the matter was listed for an interlocutory hearing today at 2.15pm before me and reminding him again of the address of the Court.  That letter also put him on notice that if he did not attend, the first respondent would seek orders that the application be dismissed. 

5. The second document is an email which was sent to the applicant’s last known email address.  The email is in identical terms to the letter that was sent on 23 January 2019 at 11.31am.

6. The first respondent seeks these proceedings be dismissed.  It is appropriate to grant that application and accordingly 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