SZCLB v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 956
•2 December 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZCLB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2004] FMCA 956 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Migration Review Tribunal – non-compliance with directions – where applicant fails to comply with directions – Rule 13.03 applied – where applicant does not attend court – Rule 13.03A applied – application dismissed. |
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.91X
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, Rr. 13.03; 13.03A
| Applicant: | SZCLB |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SYG 64 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 2 December 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 2 December 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Mr Cramer Blake Dawson Waldron |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed for non-compliance with a direction and non-appearance by the applicant.
I vacate the hearing date of 10.15am on 25 August 2005.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $2,500.00.
The application is removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 64 of 2004
| SZCLB |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal handed down on 8 December 2003.
The Tribunal affirmed a decision by a delegate of the Minister, finding that the applicant was not entitled to the grant of a Partner (temporary) Class UK Visa.
On 2 April 2004 Hedge R, listed the matter for hearing on the morning of 25 August 2005. The learned registrar also made orders about filing and serving an amended and particularised application and all evidence upon which the applicant proposes to rely on or before 14 June 2004. This has not been done. The applicant in fact has taken no steps to progress the matter.
The respondent, through her solicitors, has in fact prepared a comprehensive Court book and appears to have done all that is necessary, at this stage at least, to have the matter ready for hearing on the appointed date.
When the applicant had not complied with the registrar's directions, the respondent, early last month, sought to have this matter placed in the non-compliance list and it was listed today.
I have given leave for the filing in Court of an affidavit of Benjamin Alexander Kramer, solicitor for the respondent, to which is annexed copies of a letter dated 28 March 2004 from the applicant and a copy of his letter to the applicant, dated the 10th but posted on 11 November 2004, showing that the matter had been placed in the non-compliance list today.
The letter makes it quite clear that the matter is listed for hearing at this Court and indeed the respondent's solicitor enclosed a map. The letter makes it quite clear that an application would be made to dismiss the application with costs and non-compliance with the Court's direction.
The applicant has not appeared. He has been called on two separate occasions, three times outside the Court. An interpreter has been ordered and has attended punctually. Regrettably there is no one here to make use of her services. I do not propose to keep this matter in the list any longer. The Court has pressure placed upon it to provide hearing dates and in my view those dates should be made available for genuine applicants who have a case which they wish to have determined by the Court. It is my intention to make an order dismissing the application.
I am satisfied that the amount of costs sought is a reasonable amount. I am satisfied too that this is a matter that justifies making an order for costs.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: S. Polley
Date: 10 December 2004
0
0
0