SZFSY v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 1180
•10 August 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZFSY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 1180 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of a decision of the RRT affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa – Applicant a citizen of Kenya. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Parties – non-appearance of party – failure by applicant to attend hearing – proceedings – dismissal of proceedings – where applicant voluntarily left Australia prior to the hearing. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.475A Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.03A |
| Applicant: | SZFSY |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 425 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 10 August 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 10 August 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney South |
| Delivered on: | 10 August 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Ms Koya Phillips Fox |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 425 of 2005
| SZFSY |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 12th January 2005 and handed down on 2nd February 2005. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal was to affirm a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.
The applicant filed her application on 18th February 2005. The applicant claimed simply that “The Refugee Review Tribunal did not make the right decision on my case”. The only ground that she gave was “The RRT did not make the right decision about my case and I would like the Federal Courts (sic) review.” The applicant attended court on the first court date when the application came before Registrar Hedge. She did not require the assistance of an interpreter. The Registrar made directions and listed the application for hearing at 2.15 p.m. today, 10th August 2005.
I note there is no appearance by the applicant today. It is after the hour of 2.15 p.m. I am satisfied from the Affidavit of Anthony Cox sworn on 1 August 2005 and tendered on behalf of the respondent that there is evidence that the applicant left Australia on 11 June 2005. There is no evidence that the applicant’s departure is temporary or that she intends to return to press her application for review. In my view the appropriate course to take is to dismiss the application under R 13.03A(c) and the application is dismissed.
It would also seem appropriate that I should make an order for costs and I do propose to make an order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs. The solicitor for the respondent Minister asks that I fix costs in the lump sum of $2,000.00. The sum of $2,000.00 is well and truly within the range envisaged by the scale contained in Schedule 1 of the Rules. That is an appropriate figure that has been put to me and I propose to make an order for costs in favour of the respondent in that amount.
The application will be dismissed with costs because of the applicant’s non-appearance at court.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate:
Date: 17 August 2005
0
0
3