SZCXT v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 719

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCXT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2006] FMCA 719

MIGRATION – Visa  – protection visa  – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant – where applicant did not attend Federal Magistrates Court hearing – where evidence produced that applicant has left Australia.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Joinder of Refugee Review Tribunal – where no useful purpose would be served because application dismissed.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.475A

SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24

Applicant: SZCXT

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: SYG 639 of 2004

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 3 May 2006

Date of Last Submission: 3 May 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 3 May 2006

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) due to the non-appearance by the Applicant at Court.

2. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,800.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 639 of 2004

SZCXT

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal that was handed down on 24^th January 2003.  The application was listed for final hearing at 2.15 p.m. today.  The applicant appeared before the Registrar on 1^st February 2005 and at that stage he was represented by counsel on a direct brief.

2. Since then it appears that the applicant has left Australia and I have read the affidavit sworn by Catherine Jane Gray, solicitor, on

   
   

   15^th March 2006 and filed that same day.  In that affidavit she sets out details of a telephone conversation with the person who identified himself as the applicant on 16^th February 2006 stating that he proposed to leave Australia the following day.

3. Annexed to Miss Gray's affidavit is an e‑mail containing a printout from a legal officer at the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs confirming that the applicant did indeed depart Australia on 18^th February 2006.  That being the case, this application cannot be successful.

4. Had this matter proceeded, I would have made an order in compliance with the decision of the High Court in SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2005] HCA 24 joining the Refugee Tribunal as a respondent. In the circumstances, however, there is nothing to be gained from that procedure and I decline to join the Tribunal.

5. There is an application for costs in the sum of $2,800.00.  In my view it is an appropriate figure and clearly the Minister is entitled to a costs order in the circumstances.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  S.Polley

Date:  10 May 2006