SZJFA v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 1531

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJFA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1531

MIGRATION – Review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal – practice and procedure – failure of applicant to appear at hearing before this Court – application dismissed pursuant to r.13.03A(c) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.03A(c), sch.1

Applicant: SZJFA

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG2247 of 2006

Judgment of: Emmett FM

Hearing date: 12 October 2006

Date of Last Submission: 12 October 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 October 2006

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by the Applicant

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms E. Warner Knight, Australian Government Solicitor

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2247 of 2006

SZJFA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The first respondent seeks an order that the applicant's proceeding in this matter commenced by way of application filed on 14 August 2006 be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 due to the absence of the applicant.

2. I note that there was a prior first Court date in this matter on 21 September 2006 at which the applicant also failed to appear.

3. The first respondent reads the affidavit of Elizabeth Warner Knight affirmed 11 October 2006 in support of the application.  That affidavit annexes a letter sent by the first respondent to the applicant at the applicant's identified address for service and informs the applicant of today's directions hearing and also informs the applicant that if there is no appearance that the first respondent would move the Court for the case to be dismissed and seek costs on the ground of non appearance.

4. I note that a copy of the order made on 21 September 2006 was also sent to the applicant at the applicant's identified address for service and was returned to sender.  There is a signature on the application above the identifier "signature of applicant".  I can only assume that such signature is the applicant's.  The application identifies a mailing address.

5. It is an applicant's responsibility to notify both the Court and the first respondent of any change in contact details.  None has been received by this Court and none has been received by the first respondent. 

6. In the circumstances, I find that the applicant was either aware of the proceedings or the directions hearing on the last occasion or this morning and, for whatever reason, has chosen not to attend, or has put themselves in a position where they are unable to be aware.  In either case it is the responsibility of the applicant and the order sought by the respondent is appropriate in all the circumstances.  Accordingly, the proceeding before this Court is dismissed.

   RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

7. The first respondent seeks costs fixed in an amount of $2500 in accordance with Sch 1 Part 2 r.1(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.  I note that the first respondent submits that the costs are in fact in excess of that amount.

   ORDERS DELIVERED

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

Deputy Associate:  S. Tsang

Date:  16 October 2006