SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration & Anor

[2006] FMCA 1332

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

1. Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

2. 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

1. 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. 

2. 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. 

3. 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. 

4. 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: