SZJET v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 1692
•24 September 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZJET v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 1692 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – applicant did not attend Tribunal hearing – applicant did not attend Court – application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.03A(c), 16.05 |
| Applicant: | SZJET |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2212 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 24 September 2007 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 24 September 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 24 September 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Appearance for the Respondents: | Ms L Burnett |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The reference to the first respondent is amended to read “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.
The application filed on 11 August 2006 is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $5,000.
Within seven (7) days of the making of these orders, the first respondent’s solicitors write to the applicants by way of express post to the applicant’s address for service notifying the applicant of the orders made today and of Rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2212 of 2006
| SZJET |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore: Revised from Transcript)
I have before me an application filed on 11 August 2006 seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), made on 13 May 2002 and handed down on 4 June 2002, which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.
When the matter was called outside the Court and in the foyer of the building the applicant did not appear. Ms S Burnett appeared for the first respondent. Following a short adjournment, the matter was again called and the applicant still made no appearance. Ms Burnett submitted that the applicant attended at the directions hearing on 7 September 2006 (before a Registrar of this Court) and signed consent orders at that hearing which provided that the matter was set down for hearing today at 2:15pm. Ms Burnett tendered, and I marked as “Respondent’s Exhibit 1 (‘RE1’)”, a letter dated 17 September 2007 to the applicant, providing written submissions in this matter and advising of the time, date and place of the hearing scheduled today.
In light of the applicant’s non appearance, the Minister sought that the application be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. In the absence of any communication from the applicant, the Court agrees with the application made by the Minister and the matter is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Court’s Rules. At twenty five minutes past the scheduled hearing time, I make the relevant orders including an order that the respondent’s solicitors write to the applicant notifying him of amongst other things, Rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Associate: D Lam
Date: 09 October 2007
0
0
0