SZFEV v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 1323

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFEV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2005] FMCA 1323

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of RRT affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, R. 13.03A

SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24

Applicant: SZFEV

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File No: SYG 3583 of 2004

Delivered on: 6 September 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 6 September 2005

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Alex

Solicitors for the Respondent: Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. The Application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 for non attendance.

2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,500.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3583 of 2004

SZFEV

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The decision was made on 15 October after a hearing scheduled for 9:30 am on 11 October 2004.

2. The Applicant did not attend the hearing despite having sent a response saying that he did wish to attend and give evidence. The Refugee Review Tribunal handed down its decision on 10 November 2004.  The decision of the Tribunal was to affirm the decision of the delegate of the Minister, not to grant a protection visa to the Applicant. 

3. The Applicant now seeks a review of that decision. For some reason the Applicant has not attended Court today. The matter was listed for 10:15 am, the Applicant was called at 10:24 am and did not appear. 

   
   

   I stood the matter down in case he was delayed or had gone to the wrong Court.  I called the matter again at 10:48 a.m. I heard his name called outside the Court room three times and again he has not appeared.  No message has been received by any member of my Court staff from the Applicant or anyone on his behalf. 

4. Ms Alex, who appears for the Respondent Minister, informed me this morning that she had had no communication from the Applicant since she had posted to him a letter on 1st September enclosing a sealed copy of the Respondent's submissions. I note that the letter included the words:

   A final hearing has been listed the 6 September 2005 at 10:15 am, John Maddison Tower, 88 Goulburn Street, Sydney.

   I also note that the Respondent's solicitor included a map showing the Court location, to her letter. 

5. I am satisfied that the Respondent and the Court have now taken the necessary steps to allow the Applicant time to present his case, and that there is nothing to be gained from adjourning the matter any further.  Ms Alex, for the Respondent Minister, asks that I dismiss the matter on the basis of the non-attendance of the Applicant.  I propose to do that.

6. It is the practice of the Court when making a costs order to fix costs in a set sum, wherever possible. This is a matter where the Applicant has been wholly unsuccessful in his application and it seems to me that this is an appropriate matter for an order for costs. The sum of $2,500 which is sought on a party and party basis is, on my understanding, well within the range prescribed by the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate: Virginia Lee 

Date:  14 September 2005