SZGYH v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 694

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGYH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 694

MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the Applicant – where the Applicant does not appear – application dismissed under r.13.03A.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r. 13.03A

Applicant: SZGYH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 2154 of 2005

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 4 May 2006

Date of last submission: 4 May 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 4 May 2006

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No Appearance

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms McNaughton

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. The Application is dismissed under the provision of Rule.13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 due to the non-attendance of the Applicant. 

2. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $4,400.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2154 of 2005

SZGYH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal on 12^th July 2005 affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa to the Applicant. The Applicant applied to this Court on 11^th August 2005 for review of the Tribunal’s decision and on 20^th October 2005 filed an Amended Application. 

2. The application was before the Court on 15^th December 2005 when I vacated a hearing date on 30^th January 2007 and listed the matter for Final Hearing at 10:15am today. 

3. The Applicant has been represented by Mr Ower of counsel who mentioned another matter before me this morning and also informed the Court that he no longer had instructions to appear for the Applicant in this matter. The Applicant has not attended Court today. I note that Mr Ower of counsel had no difficulty attending Court at the right time and informing the Court that his instructions to appear had been withdrawn. 

4. I am informed that the solicitor for the Respondent with the aid of an interpreter telephoned the Applicant who informed her that he had been told by his migration agent, of all people, that the matter was listed for hearing at 2:20pm this afternoon. This seems to me to be a most extraordinary explanation to come from the Applicant. I am not at all satisfied with it. In my view, this is a matter that should not remain in the list. The application was listed for hearing at 10:15am this morning.  It is now 5 to 11.  The Applicant is not here. 

5. There is an application for costs in the sum of $4,400.00. I see no reason why I should not make an order for costs in favour of the Respondent. The Respondent has prepared the matter for hearing today and has briefed counsel and the costs figure includes counsel’s fees.  It is an appropriate figure. The Respondent managed to prepare the case and have people ready to hear the case this morning and I do not propose to make extraordinary arrangements to meet with things that people allegedly have been told by their migration agent.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  V Lee

Date:  11 May 2006