SZFYG v Minister for Immigration
[2006] FMCA 587
•29 March 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZFYG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2006] FMCA 587 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of RRT decision affirming decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa – applicant a citizen of Bangladesh claiming fear of persecution – where applicant did not attend Federal Magistrates Court hearing. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.424, 424A Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.13.03A |
| Applicant: | SZFYG |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 721 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 29 March 2006 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 29 March 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 29 March 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A due to the non-appearance by the Applicant at Court.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 721 of 2005
| SZFYG |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This matter was first before the Court on 6th April 2005, when it was listed for final hearing. It was listed for mention before me on
16th March and it is before me again today. The applicant did not attend on the last occasion and has not attended today, either.
There being no appearance by the applicant, and no explanation about the applicant’s absence, it is appropriate to apply Rule 13.03A and dismiss the application for non-attendance.
There is an application for costs on behalf of the First Respondent Minister. I am satisfied that I should make an order for costs in the Minister’s favour, as the application is to be dismissed.
The amount of costs sought is $4,000.00 inclusive and I am satisfied from the degree of preparation that appears on the file that that is an appropriate amount and well within the scale.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: S.Polley
Date: 21 April 2006
0
0
3