SZITC v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 1219

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZITC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1219

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of the RRT affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa – applicant a citizen of the Republic of Korea – the applicant did not attend the RRT hearing – where the applicant did not attend the Federal Magistrates Court hearing.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.13.03A(c)

Applicant: SZITC

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1177 of 2006

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 10 August 2006

Date of Last Submission: 10 August 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 10 August 2006

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The title of the First Respondent is changed to Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs.

2. The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) due to the non-appearance by the Applicant at Court.

3. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1177 of 2006

SZITC

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

Application

1. This is an application for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal signed on 28^th February and handed down on 21^st March 2006.  The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a Protection Visa.

2. The applicant seeks orders that his application should be remitted to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal post-decision fee of $1,400.00 should be waived.

3. The applicant has not attended Court.  He was present on the First Court Date, on 29^th May 2006, when directions were made for hearing and the application was listed for final hearing at 11.30 am today in this Court.  The time of 11.30 am is long past.  The applicant was called at 11.35 and again at 12.01.  There was no answer to the call.  I am aware that no fax, medical certificate or message from the applicant or anyone on his behalf has been received.  My staff have made inquiries just in case the applicant mistakenly went to the Court in Queens Square.  There is no sign of the applicant whatsoever. 

4. I do not believe there is any point in leaving this matter in the list any further.  The respondent's solicitor arrived in plenty of time and prepared for hearing.  The applicant has just not attended.

5. I am asked to dismiss the application under the provisions of r. 13.03A(c) for non-attendance by the applicant.  I propose to make that order. 

6. In my view this is a matter where I should consider a costs order on behalf of the first respondent and I am informed that the sum of $4,000.00 is sought.  In my view that is an appropriate amount.  The first respondent has prepared the matter for final hearing, up to and including filing a written submission setting out all the issues.  The first respondent is ready to deal with the matter on a final basis and would have done so had the applicant or someone on his behalf attended. 

7. I propose therefore to make an order for costs against the applicant, in favour of the first respondent, in the sum of $4,000.00.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  S.Polley

Date:  22 August 2006