SZHHD v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 177
•15 February 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZHHD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2007] FMCA 177 |
| MIGRATION − No appearance by the applicant − observations on use of PO Box. |
| Migration Act 1958 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) |
| Applicant: | SZHHD |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG2859 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 15 February 2007 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 15 February 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 15 February 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| No appearance by the Applicant |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms S. Sirtes |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG2859 of 2005
| SZHHD |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter an application was lodged with the Court on 6 October 2005 signed by the applicant. On 10 November 2005 the applicant attended a call-over where he was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter and signed consent orders putting the matter over for a further listing call-over on 24 February 2006. On 24 February 2006 he attended before Registrar Tesoriero when the matter was listed for hearing before me at 2.15p.m today. The applicant did not attend at 2.15p.m. He had not arrived by 2.30p.m and when his name was called outside the Court at 2.35p.m he did not appear. I would therefore propose to dismiss the matter pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs. Before I assess those costs I would make one observation. Yesterday I heard another case in which the applicant was from the same country of origin as the applicant today. Both applicants made similar claims. Neither applicant attended the hearing before the Tribunal. Both applicants sought review on the ground that they were not aware of the invitation to attend a hearing. Both applicants clearly spoke no English and were totally incapable of lodging the typewritten documents that are found in the court books, including, in both cases, a type-written application to the Refugee Review Tribunal. Both applicants gave an address as to the place at which they lived; one was in a southern suburb and one was in a south-western suburb. Both of the applicants gave an address as a mailing address which is Post Office Box A765, Sydney South, 1235. It is clear that neither of the applicants lived in the post office box and it is also clear that the post office box was a very long way from both applicants’ homes. It does not take much imagination to come to an inference that there is somewhere in Sydney a person purporting to be an immigration agent/adviser/helper who is completing forms for people and putting down an address to which information should be mailed, but to which it is most unlikely the applicant ever goes.
I am not saying that the information that is mailed to this address never comes to the attention of these applicants. In all probability it does. How else would they know to file applications in this court after the failure of their applications to the Refugee Review Tribunal? This does not necessarily mean that they knew about the Tribunal hearing.
The purpose of making these observations is to suggest to the Department that some investigation be carried out into exactly who rents or owns PO Box A765, Sydney South, 1235, so that if that person is providing assistance to applicants he or she can be identified and if that person is breaching any law in relation to the provision of such advice, appropriate steps may be taken.
I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs which I assess in the sum of $4000.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM.
Associate:
Date:
0
0
2