SZDMA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 267

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDMA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 267

SZDMA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1768 of 2004

ALLSOP J
16 MARCH 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1768 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZDMA APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 MARCH 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for and extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed pursuant s 25 (2B) (bb) (ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
2. The order of the Court today not be entered for the period of 28 days after the sending by the respondent to the applicant a letter by registered post informing him of the order of the Court that was made by reason of his non-attendance at the hearing today.
3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed at a sum of $1,200.00.

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	NSD 1768 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

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

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	16 MARCH 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter there is no appearance by the applicant. There have been no submissions filed pursuant to orders made in chambers and sent to the relevant address of the applicant. Mr White, who appears for the Minister, requests an order be made under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).  That is appropriate in all the circumstances.

2. In this case there was a non-appearance before the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Refugee Review Tribunal's reasons were apparently cogent and rational.  There was a careful decision of the Federal Magistrate.  No argument has been placed before me or in the initiating process which would identify any substance to any error in the Federal Magistrate’s decision.

3. Notwithstanding these comments, it should be noted that I am proceeding under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) and I make an order dismissing the application for an extension of time. Secondly, I order that that order not be entered before the expiry of 28 days after the sending by registered post, via the solicitors for the respondent, to the applicant of a letter informing the applicant of the orders of the Court today, that were made by reason of his non-attendance. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

4. Mr White makes an application under the Rules for the fixing of an amount of costs.  He asks for costs of $1,200.  There is no specific evidence before me, but Mr White is an experienced practitioner. He has identified to me the steps taken in the conduct of the file since the filing of the application.  Those steps appear reasonable.  The sum of $1,200 appears reasonable.  I fix the costs that the applicant is obliged to pay the respondent in the amount of $1,200.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop.

Associate:

Dated:            22 March 2005

Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R White (Slr)
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	16 March 2005
Date of Judgment:	16 March 2005