SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration & Anor
[2006] FMCA 1332
•31 August 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZCOZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2006] FMCA 1332 |
| MIGRATION – No appearance by applicant – where application summarily dismissed in previous proceedings for judicial review. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, Part 13.03A (c) |
| Applicant: | SZCOZ |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2058 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 31 August 2006 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 31 August 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 31 August 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| No appearance by applicant. |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms A. Nesbitt |
ORDERS
Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
The applicant to pay within 28 days the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $900 in accordance with Part 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2058 of 2006
| SZCOZ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
There comes before me today an application by way of notice of motion filed in court on 17 August 2006 at the directions hearing and served on that day on the applicant, who I am told was in attendance, for orders that these proceedings be dismissed as an abuse of process and on the basis that they were filed out of time and therefore the court does not have jurisdiction.
The proceeding itself is one of a type that this court has begun to see more and more of, namely applications by persons to the Refugee Review Tribunal to reconsider a decision of the delegate that the Tribunal has already considered and which has been the subject of judicial proceedings for review.
Without wishing to be in any way critical of the Department, but noting popular criticism of the court system for delays in relation to migration matters, I would suggest that the Department speed up such processes it has for the deportation of persons whose cases are concluded. In that way these persons would not have the opportunity to restart the matters and obtain bridging visas.
As it is, the applicant has not appeared today at the scheduled time of 9.30a.m and although his name was called outside the court at 9.55a.m he had still not appeared. In those circumstances I propose to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to Part 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 and fervently hope that the applicant will not make the expected application to set aside this order before he starts to appeal it. The applicant must pay the respondent’s costs which I assess in the sum of $900 and I order that those costs be paid within 28 days.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM.
Associate:
Date:
3
0
1