SZJKZ v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 1891

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJKZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRSANOR [2006] FMCA 1891

MIGRATION – Review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal – practice and procedure – whether application should be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03A(c) of Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

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

Applicant: SZJKZ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMITRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG2767 of 2006

Judgment of: Emmett FM

Hearing date: 14 December 2006

Date of last submission: 14 December 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 14 December 2006

REPRESENTATION

Counsel forNo appearance by  the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Counsel for the Respondent:
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr P. Reynolds, Clayton Utz

ORDERS

(1)That the applicant's proceeding commenced by way of application on 26 September 2006 be dismissed.

(1)I order that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $2500 in accordance with schedule 1, part 2, paragraph 1(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

(1)I direct the first respondent to notify the applicant of the orders made this morning together with a copy of Rule 1605 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2767 of 2006

SZJKZ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, the first respondent seeks an order pursuant to rRule 13.03A(c)C of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, that the applicant's proceeding, commenced by way of application filed on

   
   

   26 September 2006, be dismissed due to the non-appearance by the applicant at this morning's further directions hearing.

2. I note that the application when filed disclosed no grounds at all.  At the first Court date, the applicant was given an opportunity to file an amended application that did disclose grounds and the matter was brought back before meadjourned to on 23 November 2006 for further directions.  The applicant appeared on that occasion in person with the assistance of a Mongolian interpreter.

3. I note that a draft amended application was filed on 16 November 2006 alleging that the standard of interpretation at the hearing was inadequate.  Such a complaint plainly requires evidence, at least as a transcript, and a direction was made on that date23 November 2006 that the applicant file and serve any evidence by 13 December 2006.  The matter was further adjourned until this morning for further directions.

4. There has been no further document filed on or behalf of the applicant. 

5. The matter was adjourned for mention today at 9.30am and a copy of that order was provided to the applicant in Court.  In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant is aware of this morning's hearing.  It is now 10.50 am and the applicant has been called on at least two occasions outside.  There has been no appearance and, in the circumstances, it is appropriate that the order sought by the first respondent dismissing the proceeding pursuant to r.13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 be made.

I certify that the preceding four five (45) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM

Deputy Associate:  S. Tsang

Date:  19 December 2006