SZGCY v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 1386
•5 September 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZGCY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 1386 |
| 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 Indonesia – where the Applicant did not appear at Court. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Federal Magistrates Court 2001, R.13.03A |
| Applicant: | SZGCY |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 1006 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 5 September 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 5 September 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 5 September 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Ms Mak Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) due to the non-attendance by the Applicant at Court.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,500.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1006 of 2005
| SZGCY |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application for a review of a decision of Refugee Review Tribunal that was made on 4 March 2005 and handed down on
24 March 2005. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal was to affirm a decision of the Delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant seeks a review of that decision.
The matter has had somewhat what of a procedural history in that it came before Registrar Kavallaris on 6 May 2005. That was its first Court date. A set of directions were made and the application was listed for mention before on 9 June. On that date, the applicant appeared, represented by a solicitor. The application was then adjourned until 12 noon on 28 June 2005, the final hearing. On that date, however, the applicant appeared unrepresented. There had previously been filed a notice on ceasing to act, that document having been filed on 24 June, only a few days before the proposed hearing date.
The applicant, through the Bahasa Indonesia interpreter, sought an adjournment so that he may obtain further legal advice. The respondent's solicitors took what I regard as a very responsible attitude and conceded that the applicant had been legally represented up until four days beforehand and that there was some evidence therefore that his request to obtain further legal representation was bona fide and not a further attempt at spinning out proceedings unnecessarily.
On 5 August, which was the date to which I adjourned the matter, the applicant again appeared in person and Ms Caban, solicitor, appeared for the respondent. The applicant indicated that he had been unable to obtain further legal advice in the intervening time. I listed the matter for hearing today at 10.15, which allowed him exactly one month to prepare his case. If he was successful in obtaining legal representation in the meantime, well then he would have been in a position to be represented, but if not, he would have had sufficient time to be ready to deal with the matter.
I ordered the services of a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter. Regrettably, the applicant has not appeared today. He was called at 10.21 am and again at 10.45 am, on neither occasion did he answer the call and no message has been received by the Court to indicate that he has been delayed or hindered or prevented from attending by illness, injury or other personal circumstances. Ms Mak, solicitor for the respondent, managed to appear at the correct time and I understand that she has not received any message from the applicant indicating that he was not able to attend. The interpreter appeared at the appropriate time.
It is now well after the hour of 10.15 am, it is safe to assume that the applicant does not intend to attend Court today. As can be seen, this is not the first Court date.
Ms Mak, for the respondent, also seeks an order for costs in the sum of $4,500.00. She put to the Court that this amount is greater than she would have normally sought in a matter of this nature, but the increased costs are brought about by the fact that this matter has had a number of adjournments, which were due to the circumstances of the applicant. On no occasion has the matter been adjourned at the request of the respondent.
In my view, the costs application has merit. It is a matter where the respondent has been put to further trouble and expense without having contributed to any of those adjournments. The respondent appears to me to have acted in a reasonable way, in the conduct of these proceedings. The applicant is ready and willing to hear the case today and the respondent's outline of submissions was filed more than two months ago. Had the applicant been here to run the case today, the respondent would have been ready.
I propose to make an order for costs in favour of the respondent and I will set that amount at $4,500.00 which I consider to be a reasonable figure in the circumstances.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate:
Date: 16 September 2005
0
0
2