SZCCH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 485

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCCH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 485

SZCCH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 154 of 2005

WHITLAM J
11 APRIL 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 154 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZCCH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 APRIL 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed with costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 154 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZCCH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	11 APRIL 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of summary dismissal made in the Federal Magistrates Court under Rule 13.03 of the rules of that Court.  The proceeding in that Court was instituted on 5 December 2003 in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant.  No proper grounds of review were stated in the application.  On 5 May 2004, by consent, the applicant was ordered to file an amended application giving particulars of each ground relied on by her by 17 June 2004, and the matter was fixed for callover in the Federal Magistrates Court on 20 January 2005.  On 16 June 2004, a document described as a ‘Submission’ was accepted for filing in the Registry.  That document should not have been accepted for filing.  In any event, in due course it came to the attention of the respondent's solicitor who wrote to the applicant on 4 January 2005 pointing out that the order made by consent on 5 May 2004 had not been complied with and that, if the applicant was still in default on 20 January 2005 the respondent would move for the summary dismissal of the proceeding.  That motion was made on 20 January 2005 and the orders for summary dismissal were made.

2. The Federal Magistrate gave reasons for those orders ex tempore and the certified reasons were made available to the applicant on 3 March 2005.  Today's application was listed by a notice directed to the applicant at the address given in the application she filed.  She has not appeared today.  The application is utterly without merit and quite hopeless.  Leave to appeal would not in any event be granted.  However, in the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to accede to the request made by the solicitor for the respondent that, in the absence of the applicant and there being no explanation for her failure to appear, the application be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.

Associate:

Dated:             11 April 2005

There was no appearance for the applicant.

Mr A J Carter, solicitor, from Sparke Helmore appeared for the respondent.

Date of hearing:	11 April 2005
Date of judgment:	11 April 2005