SZFEC v Minister for Immigration
[2006] FMCA 732
•5 May 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZFEC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2006] FMCA 732 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of RRT decision affirming decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa – jurisdiction issue. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Prior proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court for review of RRT decision – where applicant did not attend court for the hearing. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.412 Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth), s.42 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.13.03A(c) |
| SZFEC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 803 SZFEC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1391 |
| Applicant: | SZFEC |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 826 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 5 May 2006 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 5 May 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 5 May 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson Waldron |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) due to the non-appearance by the Applicant at Court.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 826 of 2006
| SZFEC |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
The application was always going to be problematic in that the Tribunal had held that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the applicant's application for review of the decision.
I listed the matter for final hearing today. The applicant has not appeared. It is now 2.44 pm. I understand that the applicant telephoned the solicitor for the respondent Minister on Wednesday the third of this month seeking an adjournment, which was no acceded to.
I also understand that the applicant telephoned my associate and spoke to her, but was informed that the Court would not grant an adjournment on an ex parte basis, and that an application for an adjournment would only be considered if there was a consent from the respondent.
No such consent was forthcoming.
The applicant, in my understanding, was left with a clear indication that the matter was still listed for hearing for today, and that it would be necessary for him to attend. He had attended in person when the matter was first before the Court on 24th April.
I see no reason why the matter should remain in the list. The applicant has not appeared. I propose to dismiss the application for the
non-appearance of the applicant under the provisions of Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
The application will be dismissed for non-appearance.
There is an application for costs on behalf of the respondent in the sum of $2,000.00. This is an application that had to be prepared for final hearing, and Ms Radich from the respondent's solicitors has attended today ready to run the matter, and indeed has filed an outline of written submissions of some detail.
The amount sought is $2,000.00 inclusive, which to my mind is eminently reasonable in the circumstances.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: S.Polley
Date: 12 May 2006
0
0
4