Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

[2022] FedCFamC2G 849

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

(DIVISION 2)

Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 849  

File number(s):	SYG 1079 of 2021
Judgment of:	JUDGE EGAN
Date of judgment:	25 August 2022
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – failure by applicants to appear at hearing – application for adjournment made on the basis that the first applicant (who was the primary visa applicant) had to return to work that day rather than appear at the hearing – adjournment refused -  application dismissed by reason of non-appearance of the applicants
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	6
Date of last submissions:	25 August 2022
Date of hearing:	25 August 2022
Place:	Brisbane
Applicants:	No appearance by or on behalf of the applicants
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Second Respondent:	Submitting appearance save as to costs

ORDERS

SYG 1079 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

YAVINDER SINGH

First Applicant

KULWANT KAUR

Second Applicant

YASHPAL SINGH (and another named in the Schedule)

Third Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

order made by:	JUDGE EGAN
DATE OF ORDER:	25 AUGUST 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The name of the First Respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs”

2.The Application in a Case filed on 12 May 2022 be dismissed.

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).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE EGAN

Introduction

1. This application for reinstatement was listed for hearing today at 9:45 am, the applicants having first been given notice of such hearing date on 11 August 2022. [1]

   [1]           See Exhibits 3 and 4.

2. The Court was opened at 9:49 am and first dealt with another matter involving an interlocutory application. The hearing in this matter commenced at 10:40 am by the calling of the matter after a prior short adjournment. Arrangements had been made for the applicants in this matter to appear via Microsoft Teams.

3. At 10:25 am, an email had been received at Judge’s Chambers from the first applicant. That email said as follows:

   “Dear Associate,

   I have been waiting since 9:35am as per instructions in email yesterday hence I asked for longer morning team break from work. 

   As the hearing has not started yet, I have to get back to work as I only had leave till 10:20am. 

   Please reschedule the hearing if possible as I will try to keep that particular day off in case of instance like this

   Kind regards,

   Yadvinder Singh”

4. To the extent that the said email constituted an application for an adjournment of the hearing, it was clear from the terms of the email that it was considered that the first applicant’s attendance at work took precedence over the hearing of the application for review filed on behalf of the applicants. The Court was unimpressed by such attitude. No adjournment was granted as no good reason for any such adjournment was advanced.

5. The lawyer for the first respondent applied for the dismissal of the application for reinstatement by reason of the non-appearance of the applicants. In circumstances where the Originating Application had been dismissed by reason of the non-appearance of the applicants, and further in circumstances where no good reason had been provided for the adjournment of the hearing, the Court granted the application for dismissal of the reinstatement application.

6. Upon application for the costs of the dismissal of the Application, the Court ordered that the first and second applicants pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Application for Review fixed in the modest sum of $2,000.00.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan.

Associate:

Dated:       25 August 2022

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

SYG 1079 of 2021
Applicants
Fourth Applicant:	JASVEER KAUR