SZBRT v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 1217
•19 August 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZBRT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 1217 |
| MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of RRT – where the applicant did not attend. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a), Part 13 Rule 13.03(A)(c) |
| Applicant: | SZBRT |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULUTRAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 2216 OF 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 19 August 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 19 August 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 August 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr G Johnson |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03(A)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
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 2216 of 2003
| SZBRT |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter the applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 3 September 2003 and handed down on 26 September 2003 by way of an application filed with this court on 30 October 2003. On 26 February 2004 the applicant attended a directions hearing with an interpreter and on that date the matter was set down for hearing at 10.15 am today. I am told by Mr Johnson, who appears for the Minister, that at the hearing before the registrar the applicant indicated that he would be departing Sydney for Victoria but would be returning to Sydney in mid 2004. The applicant also received the benefit of advice pursuant to the Minister's scheme and Mr Lloyd, who provided him with that advice, confirmed to the court by letter that that advice had been given on 18 May 2004. Mr Lloyd drafted an amended application which the applicant filed himself, giving an address in South Yarra, Victoria, on 17 May 2004.
The applicant has never filed a change of address and so notwithstanding the address that is contained in the amended application, the address for service would still appear to be the address in New South Wales. The applicant also had provided the court with a mobile telephone number. I am informed by Mr Johnson that shortly before I came on the bench his instructing solicitor attempted to telephone the applicant utilising that number but there was no reply.
I am satisfied that the applicant has notice of the hearing today as this was given to him at the directions hearing and that I would be entitled to determine this matter on the basis that he has not appeared.
I propose to do that but before I do I should note that Mr Lloyd's amended application raises some interesting points of law concerning the possible existence of jurisdictional error in relation to this case. Mr Johnson, in his usual thorough manner, has provided an outline of submissions dated 17 August 2005, which document will remain with the papers. As I have heard no argument from the applicant I shall not pre-empt any decision that may later be made but I can indicate that I am more persuaded by the arguments of Mr Johnson than by the propositions of Mr Lloyd. The authorities do seem to indicate that those propositions will be difficult to maintain.
The matter was due for hearing at 10.15 am today. I have completed this short judgment at 10.47 am. The applicant is still not here although his name was called outside the court. In the circumstances, I dismiss the matter pursuant to the provisions of Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) and I also order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs which 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