SZBQX v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 461
•23 March 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZBQX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 461 |
| MIGRATION – Dismissal for non-appearance. |
| Federal Court Rules Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 |
| Applicant: | SZBQX |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG2177 of 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 23 March 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 23 March 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 23 March 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $1,500.00 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG2177 of 2003
| SZBQX |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These proceedings were commenced by way of an application dated 16 October 2003. There were three grounds in that application. The first two attacked the fact finding of the Tribunal, the third indicated a failure by the Tribunal to act in good faith. No particulars as required under Order 54B Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules were given.
On 19 February 2004 the applicant attended with an interpreter at a directions hearing. Consent orders were made and signed by him. Order 2 required the applicant to file and served an amended and fully particularised application together with an affidavit in support and any evidence upon it which he proposes to rely on, on or before 7 April 2004. Order 3 provided that in default of order 2 the respondent's solicitors may file and serve a notice of motion for summary dismissal.
The applicant did not provide the amended and fully particularised application and the respondent's solicitors approached my associate to place the matter in the non compliance list. On 24 January 2005 a letter was sent to the applicant at the new address for service which he provided to the court on 19 February 2004. This letter indicated that the matter would be before the court at 9.30 am today.
It is now 10.00 am. The applicant has been called outside the court, an interpreter has appeared but the applicant has not complimented us with his attendance. In those circumstances I propose to dismiss the application pursuant to Part 13, Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules noting that I was entitled to dismiss the matter for non compliance with the orders of the court.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs which I assess in the sum of $1,500 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
2