SZBJY v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 614
•6 May 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZBJY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 614 |
| MIGRATION –Application for review of decision of RRT –where there was a substantial delay in the application for judicial review –where the applicant failed to attend |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 |
| Applicant: | SZBJY |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 1832 of 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 6 May 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 6 May 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 6 May 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Tim Reilly |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Melissa Asimus |
ORDERS
Proceedings dismissed pursuant to Part 13, order 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
The applicant to pay the respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $4000 pursuant to Part 21 rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1832 of 2003
| SZBJY |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter has an interesting history. The applicant first arrived in Australia in May 1988. He was joined by his family in 1993. They applied for protection visas in November 1994. The processes of the application ground slowly so that by 5 January 1998 the Refugee Review Tribunal had finally determined that neither the male applicant nor any member of his family were entitled to the protection of Australia.
Notwithstanding this decision, I am on 6 May 2005, some seven years later, requested to provide judicial review of that decision. One wonders whether or not this might have been avoided had the department taken somewhat more immediate steps to remove the applicant and his family from the country. Alternatively, they could have considered them to be such long term residents that they were prepared to allow them to remain.
In any event, although the matter was due to be heard at 10.15am today and the applicant was made aware of that hearing date by virtue of the attendance before the Registrar on 27 November 2003, by his solicitor, neither his solicitor nor himself nor any other member of his family appeared by 10.40am. In those circumstances, I have accepted Mr Reilly's invitation to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to Part 13, order 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs that I assess in the sum of $4000 pursuant to Part 21 rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
1