SZBRB v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBRB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 285

MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of Registrar of this court – where applicant had not complied with directions to appear – where case dismissed by Registrar – where applicant seeks to reinstate proceedings by review – where facts indicate no possible utility.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules Rules 2001,10.01(2)(b)

MMM v Minister for Immigration [1998] 90 FCR 324

Applicant: SZBRB

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 2183 of 2003

Delivered on: 28 April 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 28 April 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: Applicant in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay respondent’s costs in addition to those ordered by Registrar Tesoriero in the sum of $500.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 2183 of 2004

SZBRB

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me an application to set aside a decision of Registrar Tesoriero made on 26 February 2004 dismissing the application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal pursuant to Rule 10.01(2)(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

2. The applicant filed an application for an Order of Review in the Federal Magistrates Court on 17 October 2003.  The matter was listed for directions on 19 February 2004 at 2.15pm.  There was no appearance by the applicant or her solicitors at the directions hearing on 19 February 2004 so the court made the following orders:

   a)Matter stood over to 2.15pm on 26 February 2004;

   b)The respondent to inform the applicant of the time and date of the adjournment and that if there is no appearance by the applicant on the next occasion the application will be dismissed.

3. The respondent complied with those orders by way of a letter dated the 19th February 2004 to the applicant's solicitor.  There was no appearance by the applicant or her solicitor at the directions hearing on 26 February 2004.  The court made orders dismissing the application and requiring the applicant to pay the respondent's fixed costs in the sum of $700.00.  The respondent was ordered to notify the applicant at her last known address of these orders.  This was done by way of a letter dated 26 February 2004.

4. There was silence from the applicant until 20 April 2004, some 54 days later, when she filed an application and supporting affidavit seeking reinstatement of the application.  The affidavit blames her former solicitor for not telling her that she needed to attend court on the 19 and 26 February.  At first it appeared that her solicitor had not told her about the dates at all but she admitted to me that he had told her about the dates but not that she should attend.  She said that if she was aware she should have attended she would have done so.

5. In many circumstances I would…