FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZIOL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2006] FCA 1742SZIOL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND ANOR
NSD 1183 OF 2006RARES J
22 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1183 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZIOL
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
RARES J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellant to attend the hearing of the appeal.
2.The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $3,000.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1183 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZIOL
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
RARES J
DATE:
22 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)
This appeal was called outside the Court twice between 10.15a.m. and 10.30a.m. today. In addition the solicitor for the first respondent attempted to telephone the appellant on the mobile telephone number identified on the notice of appeal but received a response from the telecommunications service provider that the number was not then available.
The first respondent has asked that the appeal be dismissed for want of appearance under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). In my opinion that is an appropriate order to make.
The orders I make are:
(1)Pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellant to attend the hearing of the appeal;
(2)The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $3,000.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares. Associate:
Dated: 13 December 2006
Appellant: No appearance Counsel for the Respondent: Mr AS McInerney Solicitor for the Respondent: Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 22 November 2006 Date of Judgment: 22 November 2006
- AGLC
- SZIOL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1742
- Case
- [2006] FCA 1742
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court was tasked with deciding involved the interpretation and application of relevant immigration laws and regulations, the procedural fairness of the Minister's decision-making process, and the appropriate remedy or outcome given the circumstances of the case. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and whether it was made in compliance with applicable legal standards.
In its judgment, the court found that the appellant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of the appeal. This absence was critical, as it undermined the appellant's ability to effectively present their case. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal under section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The court also ordered that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs, which were fixed at $3,000. This decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance and the consequences that can follow from failing to meet essential requirements in legal proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellant to attend the hearing of the appeal.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $3,000.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: RARES J
Full text does not contain this section.