SZDDP v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 1100
•1 December 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZDDP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2004] FMCA 1100 |
| MIGRATION – Review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – failure to comply with Court orders – no sufficient amended application – application summarily dismissed. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, Rule 13.03(2)(b) |
| Applicant: | SZDDP |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG915 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Mowbray FM |
| Hearing date: | 1 December 2004 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 1 December 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 1 December 2004 |
REPRESENTATION
| Advocate for the Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Chahine |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application filed on 29 March 2004 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03(2)(b).
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application fixed in the sum of $2,000.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG915 of 2004
| SZDDP |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an ex tempore judgment which has been revised and edited from the transcript. It relates to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 10 February 2004 and handed down on 2 March 2004. The decision upheld a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
The matter was listed for directions before me at the request of the respondent with a view to have the application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03(2)(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
The matter was before Registrar Tesoriero for directions on 25 May 2004. At those directions, the applicant consented to orders which required him to file and serve an amended application with full particulars by 17 August 2004. He did not do so.
The respondent was granted leave to read an affidavit of Tania Chahine dated 25 November 2005 to the Court at the hearing. This affidavit states that the respondents put the applicant on notice several times that he needed to provide full particulars of every ground alleged. They further informed him by letter on 20 September 2004 that the respondents would seek to have the matter summarily dismissed if he did not provide an amended application with particulars. The letter dated 27 October 2004 that the respondents sent to him after the matter had been listed for this hearing put the applicant on further notice.
At the hearing before me, the applicant handed up an outline of submissions. As the respondent submitted to me at the hearing, this is not an amended application. Moreover, the grounds are not particularised.
The applicant had alleged in his original application that the Tribunal had not looked at important evidence and did not follow the proper procedures. However, the applicant has provided no details of the alleged errors of the Tribunal.
I asked the applicant at the hearing why he had not provided an amended application and why he thought that this matter should not be dismissed summarily. The applicant responded that he was expecting a letter from the Court after the first directions hearing explaining what he had to do next. He agreed that he was mistaken in expecting one as he had been present at the directions and had taken a copy of the consent orders with him. He further alleged that he did not receive any of the letters from the respondents except the letter dated 25 November 2004 attaching the affidavit.
The letter dated 25 November 2004 was sent to the applicant’s home address and post office box by express post. According to the headings on the letters attached to the affidavit they were also sent to the same addresses. I am prepared to accept that the letters that the applicant claims not to have received were in fact sent to the applicant’s address, whether or not he received them.
I am further satisfied that the applicant has had ample opportunity and time to obey the orders made on 24 May 2004. Also the respondent has given the applicant plenty of notice of its intentions to list the matter for non-compliance with Court orders and the chance to provide a satisfactory amended application.
The orders were made by this Court over six months ago and they were due for compliance over three months ago. In the circumstances, I propose to dismiss the application.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Mowbray FM
Associate: Kelisiana Thynne
Date: 31 March 2005
0
0
2