SZERQ v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 1114
•15 June 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZERQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 1114 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – review of a decision of the RRT not to grant a protection visa – applicant a citizen of Indonesia claiming well-founded fear of persecution – where applicant did not attend RRT hearing – where applicant did not attend court. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.475 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.13.03A |
| Applicant: | SZERQ |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGNEOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 3320 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 15 June 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 15 June 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 15 June 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Potts |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Phillips Fox |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 for non-attendance.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,700.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3320 of 2004
| SZERQ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGNEOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 7th September 2004 and handed down on 5th October. In that decision the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing an application for a Protection Visa.
I note that the applicant did not attend the hearing of the Refugee Review Tribunal and it appears that the applicant has not attended this hearing, notwithstanding the fact that he attended the directions hearing.
The applicant was present at the directions hearing. He was advised as to what was necessary and as to the date today when the application was listed for final hearing at 10.15 am. He has not attended Court, his name has been called outside the Court, the matter has been called outside the Court on now two occasions, at 10.18 and at 10.50 am.
No message has been received from the applicant or from anyone on behalf of the applicant, either by the Court or, I am informed, by the respondent's legal advisers. I cannot see that there is anything to be gained by leaving the matter in the list any further. I propose to grant the application to dismiss the substantive application under the provisions of Rule 13.03A(c).
The application will be dismissed due to the failure of the applicant to attend Court, pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c).
This is a matter where I am of the view that it is appropriate to make an order for costs. Costs follow the event and the respondent was obliged to prepare for this matter on the basis that it was a defended final hearing, as indeed it was. I would have been most critical of the respondent if they had not been ready to proceed. They have briefed counsel and the instructing solicitor is available to assist counsel if required. This is a proper matter for costs. I note the sum of $3,700.00 which is sought. It is a lump sum which to my knowledge is well within the scale provided by sch. 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 and I believe it to be reasonable to order costs in that amount.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: A.Coutman
Date: 8 August 2005
0
0
3