SZHDH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 64

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHDH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 64

SZHDH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2276 OF 2005

MADGWICK J
6 FEBRUARY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2276 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZHDH
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $900.

2.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2276 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZHDH
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	6 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 17 November 2005.   The applicant for leave was advised on 11 January 2006 that the case was fixed for hearing today at 10.15 am.  It is now after 10.45 am and there is no appearance by the applicant.  The first respondent asks that the proceeding be dismissed for want of prosecution of the proceeding with due diligence pursuant to Order 35A rules 2(1)(f) and 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.

2. The proceedings in the court below were dismissed by the learned Magistrate as an abuse of process and for delay.  The case for the applicant does not appear promising, to say the least of it, and it seems to me appropriate to dismiss the proceedings for non-prosecution with costs assessed, as asked, in the sum of $900.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:
Dated:             9 February 2006

Solicitor for the Applicant:	There was no appearance for the applicant.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	6 February 2006
Date of Judgment:	6 February 2006