SZJPA v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 278
•22 February 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZJPA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 278 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Tribunal decision – no appearance by the applicant – application dismissed. |
| Applicant: | SZJPA |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP & ANOR |
| File Number: | SYG 3147 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 22 February 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 22 February 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 22 February 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Appearing for the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Appearing for the Respondent: | Ms E Warner-Knight |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The reference to the first respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.”
The application made on 27 October 2006 and amended on 3 April 2007 is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $5000.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3147 of 2006
| SZJPA |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP & ANOR |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)
Based on the evidence that has been put before the Court, the applicant has departed Australia. In any event, I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing today, including the time, date and place. I note that the applicant attended in person on 26 February 2007 and that orders were made at that time that the matter (amongst other things) be set down for hearing before me today.
The amended application which was filed in this matter is said to have been prepared by Counsel. I note a number of other documents filed, including the affidavit of Ms S Archer, annexing a transcript on behalf of the applicant, all of which would have necessitated work to have been done by the Minister’s solicitors.
I note an appearance in Court for a senior solicitor of the first respondent. I note the preparation of multiple copies of the Court Book. This was the time for the final hearing, and the amount sought, while, in addition to being the amount indicated in the relevant schedule to the Rules is, in my view, otherwise a reasonable amount.
If the applicant’s intention was to leave Australia and, therefore, to abandon his application before the Court, it was always open to the applicant at that time to if, for no other reason, indeed, as a matter of courtesy, to have notified the Court or, indeed, solicitors for the first respondent, (and I note from what I have been told from the Bar table, even his own Counsel) of his intention to depart, which may have acted to minimise the Minister's costs. Nothing of that appears to have occurred.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Associate: C Darcy
Date: 13 March 2008
0
0
0