SZFMJ v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 1633

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFMJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1633

MIGRATION – Review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal – practice and procedure – no appearance by applicant at hearing before this Court– application dismissed pursuant to r.13.03A(c) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.13.03A(c); 16.05

Applicant: SZFMJ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG112 of 2005

Judgment of: Emmett FM

Hearing date: 12 October 2006

Date of last submission: 12 October 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 October 2006

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by the Applicant

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. D Jordan

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr. I Muthalib, Blake Dawson Waldron

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG112 of 2005

SZFMJ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The first respondent seeks an order that the proceeding before this Court be dismissed pursuant to Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.13.03A(c), which allows the Court to dismiss an application if a party absent is an applicant. It is now 2.50pm, the applicant has been called on three occasions, and there is no appearance for the applicant.

2. The applicant first filed an application seeking judicial review of a Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) decision, in respect of which she was notified on 17 December 2004, on 14 January 2005. 

   
   

   On 9 February 2005, the applicant attended a directions hearing before Registrar McIllhatton, at which time the application was set down for hearing on 4 July 2006.  Due to judicial unavailability, letters were sent to the parties vacating that hearing date and nominating today's date for further hearing.

3. I note that the applicant filed a notice of change of address on 3 July 2006, and I note that the letters sent to the applicant from the Court were sent to that address. 

4. The first respondent tenders a letter on Blake Dawson Waldron letterhead, dated 14 July 2006, addressed to the applicant prudently at both her new address and also the address on the original application, informing the applicant that the matter was re-listed for hearing today at 2.15pm. 

RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant is aware of the hearing today, and for whatever reason, has chosen not to attend.  If the applicant is not aware, it is a matter for her own responsibility, and all reasonable steps, to my mind, have been taken to notify the applicant of the hearing.

2. One cannot overlook the interests of the community in having administrative decisions finalised. There has been no communication received by this Court or the first respondent from the applicant seeking any adjournment, and accordingly, pursuant to r.13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, the proceeding is dismissed.

3. I direct the first respondent forthwith to notify the applicant at the address identified for service by her in her letter filed 30 June 2006 at least - it is a matter for the first respondent if you also wish to notify at any other address - of the orders made this afternoon, together with a copy of r.16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. The first respondent seeks costs fixed in an amount of $6000, such application being one to which Sch.1 of the old rules of the Federal Magistrates Court apply.  That schedule, of course, is only a guide.  This is a proceeding where the application is short, discloses on the face of it no error capable of review on its face, relates to a decision of the Tribunal that is 10 pages long in total, in circumstances where the applicant failed to appear before the Tribunal. 

2. The green book totals 176 pages, although I understand there were some documents omitted from the green book that were necessarily copied at a later date.  The disbursements identified by the first respondent, other than counsel's fees, are in the order of $320.  I accept that those disbursements would appear reasonable. 

3. The submissions relating to the matter are brief, and unusually brief. 

   
   

   I should say that is not intended in any way as a criticism; it is a great skill to be able to distil matters down to their essential elements, and the Court is grateful for such an attempt.  However, I am of the view that it does reflect the relative lack of complexity involved in the matter. 

4. There has been some other correspondence in which the first respondent has had to engage arising out of the proceeding.  However, such correspondence is of a minor nature and would not have involved great time, in my view, on the part of the first respondent.

5. In my view, the sum sought, having regard to the relative time and complexity involved in the preparation of such a matter, is greater than I would ordinarily order.  However, I do note that the amount sought includes counsel's fees.  It is appropriate that counsel be briefed in the matter.

RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

ORDER DELIVERED

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM

Deputy Associate:  S. Tsang

Date:  2 November 2006