SZIPF v Minister for Immigration
[2006] FMCA 934
•15 June 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZIPF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2006] FMCA 934 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant – where applicant did not attend Tribunal hearing – where applicant did not attend court. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.424A, 425, 426A, 474 |
| Applicant: | SZIPF |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 959 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 15 June 2006 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 15 June 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 15 June 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Phillips Fox |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A due to the non-appearance by the Applicant at Court.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,890.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 959 of 2006
| SZIPF |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. I note that the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing. The hearing was listed for 8th February at 1.00 pm.
The applicant did not appear to reply to the Tribunal's invitation and the applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the time and place at which he was scheduled to appear. The Tribunal made the decision to use its powers under s.426A of the Migration Act to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.
The Tribunal then went ahead and considered the application in the light of the material that it had but dismissed the application on
14th February 2006. This was done on the basis, as far as I can see, of the insufficiency of the material provided.
The applicant has sought a review of that decision from this Court. The first Court date for the applicant's application was
Monday 1st May 2006 at which stage the Court made orders relating to the filing and service of a notice of address for service, a Court book and any additional information such as an amended application or any affidavit. The respondent's solicitors have certainly filed a Court book and have prepared written outline of submissions.
The application was listed for hearing at 11.45 am today,
15th June 2006. The applicant has not appeared. He filed an amended application, I note, on 23rd May 2006 but does not appeared to have filed any other documentation.
The application was called at 11.45 am. There was no appearance by the applicant. The solicitor for the respondent and the Mandarin interpreter provided by the Court were both in attendance.
I called the matter at 11.50 am and the applicant did not appear.
I stood the matter down in the list and instructed my staff to make inquiries as to whether as message had been received from the applicant or on the applicant's behalf. No message has been received. No faxed medical certificate, no telephone call or no message from any other person. It does not appear that the applicant has attended the Court premises in Queen Square by mistake.
At 12.17 pm the applicant was called again. The applicant still did not appear. By that stage I had formed the view that it was unlikely that the applicant was going to attend the Court and I have now been asked by Ms McDonald for the respondent minister to deal with the matter under the provisions of r.13.03A(c). I propose to accede to that application.
The applicant has not appeared and no reason is given. Rule 13.03A(c) provides that:
If the party absent is an applicant the Court has the power to dismiss the application.
I dismiss the application because of the absence of the applicant.
There is an application for costs on behalf of the 1st respondent minister. The amount sought is the sum of $1,890.00. That appears to me to be well within the appropriate range and I see no reason why I should not make an order for costs due to the unexplained absence of the applicant. The respondents have had the necessity to prepare the case for final hearing and it is no fault of the respondents that the applicant has not attended.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: S.Polley
Date: 28 June 2006
0
0
2