SZCVO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 414

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCVO V Minister For Immigration And Multicultural And Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 414

SZCVO v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 378 of 2005

WHITLAM J
12 APRIL 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD378 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZCVO APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 APRIL 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 13 September 2004 is refused 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	NSD378 OF 2005

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

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	12 APRIL 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. As the applicant has failed to attend the hearing, the solicitor for the respondent submits that the application should be dismissed with costs.  Notice of the hearing was sent in good time to the applicant’s address for service.  I think, therefore, that in the absence of any explanation for the absence of the applicant, such an order is appropriate.  I am entirely comfortable taking this course because, having read the reasons for judgment in the court below, an appeal would obviously be futile:  Halliday v SACS Group Pty Ltd (1993) 67 ALJR 678 per Mason CJ at 679.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.

Associate:

Dated:             12 April 2005

There was no appearance by or for the applicant.
Solicitor for the respondent:	Mr A J Carter from Sparke Helmore
Date of hearing:	12 April 2005
Date of judgment:	12 April 2005