SZFUO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

Case [2006] FCA 746

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFUO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2006] FCA 746

SZFUO AND ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND ANOR
NSD 2498 OF 2005

RARES J
29 MAY 2006
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2498 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZFUO
SZFUP
SZFUQ (a minor by her next friend SZFUO)
SZFUR (a minor by his next friend SZFUO)
SZFUS (a minor by his next friend SZFUO)
SZFUT (a minor by her next friend SZFUO)
APPELLANTS

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

RARES J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 MAY 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellants to attend the hearing of the appeal today.

2.The appellants pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $3000 in respect of the proceedings.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2498 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZFUO
SZFUP
SZFUQ (a minor by her next friend SZFUO)
SZFUR (a minor by his next friend SZFUO)
SZFUS (a minor by his next friend SZFUO)
SZFUT (a minor by her next friend SZFUO)

APPELLANTS

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

RARES J

DATE:

29 MAY 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

  1. On 8 February 2006 I fixed this matter for hearing on 26 April 2006.  That hearing date was vacated and the matter was relisted for today.  There has been no appearance by the appellants when the matter was called outside the court this afternoon.  I have also noted the contents of the affidavit of the former solicitor for the appellants, Mr McNally, and the affidavit of Ms Griffin sworn today.

  2. I am of opinion that in light of the fact that the appellants have not attended the hearing of the appeal I should make an order as sought by the first respondent pursuant to my power under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), namely, that I should dismiss the appeal for failure of the appellants to attend a hearing relating to the appeal, namely, the hearing of the appeal today.

  3. The first respondent seeks an order for costs in the fixed sum of $3000.  I am of opinion that that is a reasonable sum to seek in light of the facts that the matter has been fixed for hearing, considerable work has been done on the written submissions for the first respondent and the matter was ready to proceed today.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares.

Associate:

Dated:             26 June 2006

Appellants: No appearance
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr JAC Potts
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 29 May 2006
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2006
Details
AGLC
SZFUO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 746
Case
[2006] FCA 746
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the appellants, SZFUO and others, who were seeking to appeal against a decision of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs. The dispute centred around the respondents' decision to cancel the visas of the appellants, who were asylum seekers. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the appeal and the associated costs.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellants had validly appealed the decision and if the appeal was to be dismissed due to the appellants' failure to attend the hearing. The court had to consider the rules and procedures governing the appeals process, particularly focusing on whether the appellants' absence from the hearing justified the dismissal of the appeal. Furthermore, the court needed to decide on the appropriate costs to be awarded to the respondent as a result of the appellants' non-attendance.

In dismissing the appeal, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements. The appellants' failure to attend the hearing was deemed a significant procedural lapse, leading the court to conclude that the appeal was not properly before it. The court noted that the appellants had been notified of the hearing date and had the opportunity to attend but chose not to. Consequently, the court found that the appeal should be dismissed for this failure. Additionally, the court awarded costs to the respondent, reflecting the procedural breach caused by the appellants' non-attendance.

In light of the above, the court made two specific orders. Firstly, the appeal was dismissed due to the appellants' failure to attend the hearing. Secondly, the appellants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $3000 for the proceedings. This decision underscores the necessity for parties to comply with court-imposed deadlines and procedures to ensure the proper administration of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellants to attend the hearing of the appeal today.

2. The appellants pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $3000 in respect of the proceedings.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

RARES J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: RARES J

Full text does not contain this section.