SZFEO v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 523
•7 April 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZFEO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 523 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – protection-visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of the RRT affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the Applicant a protection visa – Applicant a citizen of India – where Applicant elected not to attend the RRT hearing – where Applicant did not attend the Court. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Notice of Objection to competency – decision handed down on 16 April 2002 – application for review not made until 6 December 2004. |
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s.475A
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 Rules 13.03, 13.03A
| Applicant: | SZFEO |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SYG 3573 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 7 April 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney South |
| Hearing date: | 7 April 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | No Appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Cramer |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson Waldron |
ORDERS
That the application is dismissed:
(a)for non-appearance by the Applicant pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c); and
(b)for default by the Applicant in complying with an order made on 20 December 2004 in that he failed to file and serve an amended application giving complete particulars of any ground of review by 28 February 2005.
The hearing date of 18 August 2005 at 2:15pm is vacated.
The Application is to pay the Respondent Minister’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,335.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3573 of 2004
| SZFEO |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application today by the Respondent to deal with the applicant for non-compliance with directions made by a Registrar of this Court on 20 December 2004. Those directions were to file and serve an amended application containing complete particulars of each ground of review by 28 February 2005, and also to file and serve any affidavit containing additional evidence intended to be relied upon again by 28 February 2005.
The Applicant has had legal advice in these proceedings. He had a conference with a barrister on 26 January 2005, where he indicates that he forwarded a written advice to the Applicant. That barrister,
Mr Ower, does not have instructions to appear for the Applicant either today or on the final hearing.
The Applicant has been advised of the application made by the Respondent's solicitors, and I am satisfied that he has been given sufficient notice and sufficient information about this hearing and its purpose today. Indeed, an interpreter has been made available to assist him, should he have attended.
I rely on the affidavit of Benjamin Alexander Cramer, solicitor, who has annexed copies of all relevant correspondence, and I am satisfied not only that the Applicant has been advised of these proceedings but has made no contact with Mr Cramer or anyone from his firm about the course of these proceedings.
He has not appeared here today, notwithstanding the fact that the matter was called at 10.15 and 10.43 am. I note that it is now 10.53 and the Applicant has not appeared.
I propose to dismiss the application under Rule 13.03 for failure to comply with an order of the Court. I also propose to dismiss the application for non-appearance as set out in Rule 13.03A(c), and I note that this is not the first Court date of the proceedings.
I will also vacate the date for the final hearing on 18 August 2005.
I propose to order a transcript of my reasons for this decision in case they will become necessary.
The Respondent’s solicitor seeks an order for costs. I propose to make such an order, as costs have been thrown away by the applicant’s failure to attend or do anything to progress his case. I believe that a fixed sum of $3,335.00 is reasonable in all the circumstances.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: V Lee
Date: 21 April 2005
0
0
0