SZDYS v Minister for Immigration
[2006] FMCA 278
•13 February 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZDYS & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2006] FMCA 278 |
| MIGRATION – Application to restore case dismissed in absence of applicant. |
| SZDYS v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 823 SQJB v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1152 |
| Applicant: | SZDYS & ANOR |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 2002 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 13 February 2006 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 13 February 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 13 February 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | In Person |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $650.00 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2002 of 2004
| SZDYS & ANOR |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I have before me an application filed in this court on 25 November 2005:
“To reopen my case because my case was dismissed and I was not present.”
This applicant's litigious history is quite long. Much of it is set out in my decision SZDYS v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 823 of 10 November 2004 where I dismissed an application to review a decision of the Tribunal that had already been reviewed as an abuse of process. At [6] I said:
“The applicant is not present today. She was not present before the Tribunal. She was represented in the Federal Court proceedings and she did attend the directions hearing when it was indicated to her that this application might be made. I am satisfied that this third application now in the lowest court in the Federal ranks is an abuse of process.”
In support of her application today to set aside that order the applicant said in an affidavit:
“I didn't know about the hearing date so that's why I didn't come.”
This statement was palpably untrue. The applicant had the good grace to admit that in the witness box today.
Since the hearing on 10 November 2004 the applicant, taking a hint from what I said in [3] of my judgment that she had not taken any steps to appeal an order of Selway J, took such steps. Her application for leave to appeal was dismissed by Mansfield J on 1 August 2005; SQJB v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1152. The applicant waited a further three months before filing this application. The applicant has provided me with no grounds upon which I could possibly extend to her the accommodation requested. I dismiss her application. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs which I assess in the sum of $650.00
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
2
0