Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services, Multicultural Affairs

[2021] FCA 831

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services, Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 831

Appeal from:	Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 748
File number(s):	QUD 49 of 2020
Judgment of:	SC DERRINGTON J
Date of judgment:	21 July 2021
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adjournment of final hearing – where appellant failed to file submissions on time - where no satisfactory basis for adjournment – application refused
Cases cited:	Aon Risk Services Pty Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Queensland
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs:	8
Date of last submission/s:	21 July 2021
Date of hearing:	21 July 2021
Counsel for the Appellant:	Appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Ms Leith Helsdon of Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

QUD 49 of 2020

BETWEEN:

SATVIR SINGH

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES, AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	SC DERRINGTON J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 JULY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1)The interlocutory application of 21 July 2021 for an adjournment be dismissed.

(2)The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from the Transcript)

SC DERRINGTON J:

1. This hearing relates to an interlocutory application filed on 21 July 2021 by the appellant, Mr Singh, for an adjournment of the hearing of his application for an extension of time and leave to appeal in matter number QUD49/2020.

2. The application for an adjournment is based on the fact that the appellant’s laptop was stolen from his car on 29 June 2021 and the appellant’s submissions for the preparation of the hearing were contained on that laptop.

3. In orders made on 3 June 2021, the appellant was ordered to file submissions limited to 10 pages by 16:00hrs on 25 June 2021.

4. The appellant did not comply with that order. The laptop was stolen some four days later and the appellant has been unable to give any explanation for why he did not comply with the order.

5. As the first respondent pointed out, these proceedings have been on foot since February 2020. The appellant raised the fact that COVID-19 has caused hardship to him and that he has been the victim of two robberies in March 2021 and on 1^st April 2021. He also submitted that he was assaulted in his vehicle on another occasion. The appellant raised none of those issues in the case management hearing on 3 June 2021 and in oral submissions today, told the Court that he made a deliberation decision not to tell the Court those matters. The reason provided was that they related to personal matters that he did not wish to disclose to the Court.

6. The appellant has also been unable to provide explanation for why he was unable to file submissions after 29 June 2021.

7. Conscious of the costs that have already been incurred in this matter, and conscious of the principle in Aon Risk Services Pty Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 72, I dismiss the application for the adjournment.

8. The appellant will pay the costs of the application heard today.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice SC Derrington.

Associate:

Dated:       21 July 2021