Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 1625

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh  v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 1625

VINAY SINGH & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 972 of 2004

HILL J
6 DECEMBER 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 972 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	VINAY SINGH & ORS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 DECEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applications be dismissed.
2. The applicants pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 972 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	VINAY SINGH & ORS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE:	6 DECEMBER 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HILL J:

1. Before the Court is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal, affirming the decision of a Delegate of the respondent Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, that the applicants were not entitled to the grant of a Business Skills (Residence) Class BH (Visas).

2. A directions hearing in the matter was held on 16 July 2004 at which Mr Singh, one of the applicants, was present.  Directions were made including that the matter be listed for hearing this morning at 10.15am. When the matter was called on for hearing the applicants were not present.  Counsel for the respondent requests that in accordance with Order 32 Rule 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules, the proceedings be dismissed.  I would accede to that application.

3. I should say that I have read the Tribunal's decision.  There is nothing to suggest that the Tribunal made any jurisdictional error.  The orders I would make accordingly are that:

   (1)the applications be dismissed;

   (2)the applicants pay the respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hill.

Associate:

Dated:             14 December 2004

No appearance for the Applicant
Counsel for the Respondent:	J A C Potts
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	6 December 2004
Date of Judgment:	6 December 2004