Singh v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

[2014] FCCA 1032

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 1032

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal.

PRACTICE & 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 Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.03C, 44.12

Applicant: RUSSPREET SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 79 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Emmett

Hearing date: 21 May 2014

Date of Last Submission: 21 May 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 21 May 2014

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms Michelle Stone
(DLA Piper)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 79 of 2014

RUSPREET SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The first respondent seeks an order pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the Rules”) that the proceeding before this Court commenced by way of application filed on 13 January 2014 be dismissed by reason of the failure of the applicant to appear at today’s scheduled hearing. 

2. In support of the application, the first respondent’s solicitor, Ms Stone, read the affidavit of Katherine Elizabeth Waters, affirmed 20 May 2014.

3. Ms Waters’ affidavit annexes a letter sent to the applicant on 15 May 2014 identifying the date, time, and location of today’s scheduled hearing.

4. I note the letter was sent to the applicant’s address for service identified in the Change of Address for Service filed in Court on 5 May 2014.

5. On 5 May 2014, the applicant attended a directions hearing before me. On that occasion, I explained to the applicant that the grounds of the application made bare particularised assertions that did not disclose an error capable of review by this court and that, pursuant to r.44.12 of the Rules of this Court, his application may be dismissed if the Court is not satisfied that the application raises an arguable case for the relief claimed.

6. I explained to the applicant that the Court has no power to interfere with a decision of the MRT unless the Court is satisfied that the MRT’s decision is affected by a mistake going to its jurisdiction and further explained to the applicant the cost consequences that may flow to him if he was unsuccessful in his application. The applicant was provided with a copy of r.44.12 of the Rules, together with a copy of the schedule of costs to which he had been referred.

7. The applicant then confirmed that he wished to continue with his application and was subsequently provided by the Court with the contact details of legal services providers and interpreting and translating services. 

8. The applicant was directed to file and serve an amended application and any further evidence by way of affidavit and submissions in support of any further amended application by 14 May 2014 and the matter was set down for hearing, pursuant to r.44.12 of the Rules, today at 10:00am.

9. There has been no document filed by or on behalf of the applicant. Nor has there been any communication received, either by the Court or the first respondent’s solicitor, from the applicant seeking an adjournment of today’s hearing or for any other reason. 

10. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant is aware of today’s hearing and, for whatever reason, has chosen not to attend. 

11. Accordingly, the orders sought by the first respondent are appropriate and the proceeding before this Court commenced by way of application filed on 13January 2014 should be dismissed, pursuant to r.13.03C of the Rules, by reason of the failure of the applicant to appear at today’s scheduled hearing.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett

Associate: 

Date:  29 May 2014