Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2024] FedCFamC2G 1256

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1256

File number(s):	SYG 1657 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE STREET
Date of judgment:	6 November 2024
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – employer nomination visa – nomination refused – application dismissed for failure to appear-application for reinstatement – applicant not longer wishes to pursue reinstatement –reinstatement dismissed with further order as to fixed costs
Legislation:	Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	7
Date of hearing:	6 November 2024
Place:	Sydney
For the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared via audio-link
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Ms G Gutmann of Minter Ellison Lawyers

ORDERS

SYG 1657 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

BALJINDER SINGH

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE STREET
DATE OF ORDER:	6 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application in a Proceeding filed 16 September 2024 is dismissed.

2.The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s further costs fixed in the amount of $500.00.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE STREET

1. These are proceedings that were commenced on 9 September 2023, by the applicant.  The applicant had apparently used an agent to commence the proceedings.

2. The proceedings concerned a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal  made on 26 June 2020, affirming a decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination class RN (subclass 187) visa.  The delegate affirmed, the decision because the nomination by Poongothai  Pty Ltd had been refused.

3. The a application in this Court for review was listed for hearing, and then subject of orders dismissing the same on 17 August 2021 under r13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) for the failure of the applicant to appear. There was then filed in this court an application for reinstatement by the applicant together with an affidavit of the applicant. That application was listed for hearing today.

4. The applicant has appeared by telephone and confirmed his identity.  The applicant has indicated he has obtained another visa and does not wish to pursue the application.  The applicant explained that his agent had lodged the application on his behalf, and that the email address that is on his application was that of his agent.  The applicant indicated he did not wish to pursue the reinstatement, and accordingly the Court has dismissed the application in the case.

5. The Court then heard an application for costs by the Minister. The costs identified by the Minister exceeded $500.  The Court regularly hears applications for costs by the Minister.  The Court is satisfied that the amount of $500 for dealing with the reinstatement application is a reasonable amount of costs, given that the Minister would have in fact incurred costs in excess of that amount.

6. The applicant indicated that he had asked his agent to discontinue the case and had not been able to get his agent to do so.  Whilst the Court accepts those explanations, it does not mean that the Minister is not entitled to seek costs for the further listed interim hear date before this Court.  The dismissal means the Minister has unnecessarily incurred costs and as a matter of discretion the Court finds that the Minister is entitled to a costs order in the fixed sum of $500.

7. Accordingly, it is for these reasons the Court makes the above orders  .

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.

Associate:

Dated:       6 November 2024