SZFNB v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFNB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2005] FMCA 1440

MIGRATION – RRT decision – application for judicial review dismissed for non-appearance – application to set aside default order – refused.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.13.03A(c), 16.05(2)(a)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.483A

Applicant: SZFNB

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 143 of 2005

Judgment of: Smith FM

Hearing date: 5 September 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 5 September 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr A Crockett

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The Tribunal be included as second respondent, and note the undertaking by the solicitor for the first respondent to file a submitting appearance by the second respondent. 

2. The applicant’s application under r.16.05(2)(a) to set aside orders made on 4 July 2005 is refused.

3. The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $800. 

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG143 of 2005

SZFNB

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. I have before me today an application by the applicant, in effect, to set aside orders made on 4 July 2005 in the absence of the applicant.  The orders were made by me at a directions hearing appointed by the Court at the request of the solicitors for the Minister.  The listing was requested in view of the non‑compliance by the applicant with directions made on 9 February 2005 for the filing and service of an amended application giving particulars of the application for review. 

2. The applicant’s original application for review sought orders in relation to a decision of the Tribunal which affirmed a decision refusing an application for a protection visa.  The application adopted a template which is a list of general allegations of grounds of judicial review, some of which may amount to jurisdictional errors, but which contained no particulars which showed any relevance to the particular decision of the Tribunal sought to be reviewed. 

3. At the directions hearing on 4 July 2005, I was satisfied by an affidavit of Andrew John Crockett, sworn 1 July 2005, that the applicant had been duly served with notice of the listing by way of a letter addressed to the applicant which was dated and sent on 20 May 2005.  The letter gave more than ample notice of the time and place of the listing. 

4. The applicant did not attend on that day. I ordered that the substantive application be dismissed under r.13.03A(c) for absence from the hearing and made an order for him to pay an amount of costs. I also ordered the respondent to notify the applicant of the orders and of the provisions of r.16.05(2)(a), which permits the Court to set aside an order made in the absence of the applicant.

5. It is clear to…