SZGJI v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 1672

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGJI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1672

MIGRATION – No appearance – whether application should be dismissed.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Applicant: SZGJI

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG1336 of 2005

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 1 November 2006

Date of Last Submission: 1 November 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 1 November 2006

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG1336 of 2005

SZGJI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This application was originally due to be heard on 30 November 2006.  On 19 September 2006 a letter was written to the applicant advising him that the matter had been re-listed for today, 1 November 2006. 

   
   

   I am informed by Ms Quinn, who appears on behalf of the respondent, that her firm also wrote to the applicant concerning the new hearing date and, presumably, sent him a copy of her written submissions. 

   
   

   The letter which the court sent to the applicant was not returned. 

   
   

   Ms Quinn tells me that some letters sent by her firm to the applicant had been returned marked no longer at this address.

2. As the applicant has not appeared today at the appointed time and is still not here when his name was called outside the court at 2.30p.m., I propose to dismiss the application pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 noting that if the applicant should appear on 30 November the respondent has indicated that it would not resist an application to set aside this order for dismissal.  The applicant must pay the respondent’s costs which I assess in the sum of $4,000.00.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Associate: 

Date: