SZCLF v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 1460

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCLF & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 1460

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of a decision of the RRT affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa – Applicants are citizens of India – members of a “scheduled caste” – third, fourth and fifth applicants are children aged 9, 8 and 4 years.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – costs – order for costs against adult applicants only – children played no separate part in the proceedings.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.475A
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.13.03A(c)

First Applicant: SZCLF

Second Applicant: SZCLG

Third Applicant: SZCLH

Fourth Applicant: SZCLI

Fifth Applicant: SZCLJ

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: SYG 69 of 2004

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 26 September 2005

Date of Last Submission: 26 September 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 26 September 2005

REPRESENTATION

The Applicants: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Burnett
Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) due to the non-attendance of the Applicants at Court

2. The first and second Applicants are to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,800.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 69/04

SZCLF

First Applicant

And

SZCLG

Second Applicant

And

SZCLH

Third Applicant

And

SZCLI

Fourth Applicant

And

SZCLJ

Fifth Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal that was made and handed down on 20^th November 2004.  That decision affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister made on 10^th June 2003 to refuse protection visas to the applicants, all of whom are citizens of India.

2. The applicants commenced proceedings in this Court on

   
   

   12 January 2004.  On 2 April 2004 the application came before a Registrar for the first time and was allocated a hearing date of 2.15 pm today, 26 September 2005. 

3. The applicants filed an amended application on 1^st July 2004. 

   
   

   No further communication was received from the applicants and indeed the respondent solicitors prepared a detailed outline of submissions. 

4. I have been handed today an affidavit of Sharon Ann Burnett sworn today to which has been annexed movement check printouts and movement details of all five of the applicants.  It appears that the applicants departed Australia on 11^th September 2004 without informing the respondent’s solicitors.  The applicants have been called, and not surprisingly, they have not attended. 

5. I propose to dismiss the application under Rule 13.03A(c) on the basis that there is no appearance by any of the applicants.

6. There is also an application for costs on behalf of the respondents in the sum of $3,800.00.  That is within the scale provided by the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. 

7. I note that the first and second applicants are a husband and wife and the third, fourth and fifth applicants are their children who are now aged 9, 8 and 4 years.  In my view it is not appropriate for me to make orders against the infant applicants on the basis, not only that they are infants and are unlikely to have any assets of their own, but I note that they have taken no independent part in the proceedings whatsoever.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  S.Polley

Date:  5 October 2005