SZEUU v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 1367

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEUU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1367

MIGRATION – Visa – Bridging A (Class WA) visa – where applicant has left Australia.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.03A(c)

Applicant: SZEUU

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 1294 of 2006

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 6 September 2006

Date of last submission: 6 September 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 6 September 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Mansour

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The title of the First Respondent is changed to Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs.

2. The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule.13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 due to the non-attendance by the Applicant.

3. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $4,100.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1294 of 2006

SZEUU

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal. The application was last before the Court on 19^th June and was listed for Final Hearing at 2:00pm today.  However, it appears the Applicant has left the country.  The Applicant has not attended Court today. I have before me an affidavit of Andrea Maree Mansour sworn on 1^st September 2006 and she deposes to the fact that the Applicant departed Australia on 28^th August 2006 and was at the time the holder of a bridging visa WA; that is, a visa that does not allow re-entry into Australia. 

2. I am satisfied the Applicant has left Australia and that explains why he is not here today.

3. I propose to dismiss the application for review under the provisions of Rule.13.03A(c) because of the non-attendance by the Applicant at the Final Hearing.

4. There is an application for costs on behalf of the First Respondent Minister in the sum of $4,100.00 or any other sum the Court deems fit.  I again have recourse to the affidavit of Ms Mansour and paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 set out the time taken, the work that was done and the disbursements. I note that the work involved briefing Counsel and of course since the applicant only left Australia as recently as 28^th August, it would have been necessary to brief Counsel prior to that date for a hearing to take place on 6^th September. 

5. In my view, the costs set out are reasonable and appropriate. This is a matter where the Court should make an order for costs in favour of the First Respondent and I propose to make such an order and I propose to make the order in the sum of $4,100.00 as sought.  

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  Virginia Lee

Date:  13 September 2006