SZDJC v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 1060
•4 November 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZDJC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2004] FMCA 1060 |
| MIGRATION – Refugee – no appearance. |
| Applicant: | SZDJC |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SYG1150 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 4 November 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 4 November 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | NIL |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | NIL |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Clegg |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Layton Utz |
ORDERS
This application is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates' Court Rules
The applicant pay the Respondent's costs set in the amount of $4950 pursuant to rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates' Court Rules
The respondent notify the applicant of these orders and the provisions of rule 16.05(2) of the Federal Magistrates' Court Rules by prepaid post to the Applicant's last known address for service within seven days of the making of these orders.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG1150 of 2004
| SZDJC |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
By application to this Court filed on 19 April 2004 the applicant sought review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 29 July 2003 and handed down on 29 July 2003 affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister made on 22 November 2000 to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.
The applicant is a Pakistani national, who arrived in Australia on
11 August 1998 and applied to the respondent Minister's Department for a protection visa on 14 August 2000.
The applicant did not attend the first Court date in this matter on
3 August 2004. On that date, the Court made orders to adjourn the matter to 17 August 2004 and for the respondent to notify the applicant of the time, date and place of the adjourned date for the matter to again come before the Court. The applicant subsequently did appear on
17 August 2004 being the date for the adjourned directions hearing. He appeared in person and was assisted by an interpreter in the Urdu language. On that date he signed Short Minutes of Order that subsequently became orders of the Court. An order amongst others was made by the Court that the applicant file and serve an amended application giving full particulars of each ground of review relied upon by 12 October 2004. To date no such amended application has been filed. The Court also made an order (Order 4) that the matter be listed for final hearing at 2.15 pm on 4 November 2004 before me at JMT (“John Maddison Tower”).
When the matter was called today outside Court 7A at JMT there was no appearance by the applicant. The matter was then called in the [ground floor] foyer of John Maddison Tower and again there was no appearance by the applicant.
The applicant had notice of the hearing before the Court today and has not attended. There is nothing before the Court to show that the applicant or anyone on his behalf, has made any attempt to contact the Court or the respondent’s solicitors to advise that he could not attend, or to explain his absence. Nor has the applicant sought any adjournment. Accordingly I will make orders pursuant to rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates' Court Rules to dismiss the application.
Ms Clegg for the respondent minister has also sought costs in this matter and I have indicated that I would agree to making an order in the amount of $4950 which in the circumstances of the work to which the respondent and her representatives have been put appears to be an appropriate and reasonable amount. I note in particular that by orders made by the Court on 17 August 2004 the respondent was required to file and serve a bundle of documents on or before 14 September 2004. This was done. I note also that there were two attendances at directions hearings before the Court. I note that the respondent filed and served an outline of submissions in this matter and I note appearance by counsel and instructing solicitor before me today. It is in these circumstances appropriate and reasonable that I make an order for costs in the amount of $4950.
It is also appropriate that I order that the respondent’s solicitors write to the applicant bringing his attention to rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates' Court Rules. In particular rule 16.05 (2)(a) would allow the applicant the opportunity to apply to this Court to have these orders waived or set aside.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Associate: Wagma Aziza
Date: 27 January 2005
0
0
0