SINGH v Minister for Immigration and BORDER PROTECTION and Anor
[2015] FCCA 2654
•25 September 2015
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR | [2015] FCCA 2654 |
| Catchwords: PRACTICE AND 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 Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03C |
| Applicant: | PRITPAL SINGH |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1217 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Emmett |
| Hearing date: | 25 September 2015 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 25 September 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 25 September 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. |
| Solicitor for the Respondents: | Ms Brooke Griffin (Australian Government Solicitor) |
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1217 of 2014
| PRITPAL SINGH |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The first respondent seeks an order pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the Rules”) that the proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 6 May 2014, be dismissed by reason of the failure of the applicant to appear at today’s scheduled hearing.
On 2 June 2014, the applicant attended a directions hearing before me, where he had the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter. I explained to the applicant that this Court has no power to interfere with the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the MRT”), unless the Court is satisfied that the MRT’s decision is affected by a mistake going to the jurisdiction of the MRT.
At the directions hearing, the applicant was provided with a copy of the applicable costs schedule of the Court and I explained to the applicant the consequences that would flow to him if a costs order was made against him. Namely, that whilst any costs order remains unpaid, it becomes a debt to the Commonwealth of Australia. As such, the applicant’s ability to obtain any other type of visa or re-enter Australia may be significantly affected.
The applicant confirmed that he wished to continue with the application for judicial review. The applicant was given leave to file and serve an Amended Application giving complete particulars of each ground of review relied upon, together with any further evidence by way of affidavit, including any transcript of the MRT hearing, as well as submissions in support by 28 July 2014 and was directed to file and serve written submissions in support of his application 14 days before the hearing.
On that occasion, the matter was set down for hearing for 10 September 2015 at 10:15am, before me. The Orders made on that day also included an Order that in the event there is no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant at the time of any scheduled court event, the application may be dismissed without further notice.
On 8 September 2015, my Chambers wrote to both parties at their addresses for service in Australia informing them that the hearing on 10 September 2015 was vacated and that a new hearing date would be communicated to the parties.
On 14 September 2015, a further letter was sent to the parties at their addresses for service in Australia, notifying the parties that the hearing date was today, 25 September 2015, at 10:00am and providing the location and address of the courtroom.
In support of the application for dismissal pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Rules, the solicitor for the first respondent, Ms Griffin, tendered a letter dated 2 September 2015 addressed to the applicant at the applicant’s address for service in Australia. That letter was marked Exhibit 1R. Exhibit 1R attached the first respondent’s submissions, filed on 2 September 2015, and notified the applicant that, if the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled court date, the first respondent may seek to dismiss the application. The matter has been called outside on at least two occasions this morning, most recently within the last 10 minutes.
Other than his originating application and supporting affidavit, there has been no document filed by the applicant in this proceeding, either in accordance with the directions of the Court made on 2 June 2014 or at any other time.
Further, there has been no communication received, either by the Court or the first respondent, from the applicant seeking an adjournment of today’s hearing or for any other reason.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant is aware of today’s scheduled hearing and, for whatever reason, has chosen not to attend.
I am satisfied that the Orders sought by the first respondent are appropriate.
Accordingly, the proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 6 May 2014, should be dismissed with costs pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Rules by reason of the failure of the applicant to appear at today’s scheduled hearing.
I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett
Associate:
Date: 2 October 2015
0
0