SZJPO v Minister for Immigration

[2008] FMCA 1163

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJPO & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMGRATION & ANOR [2008] FMCA 1163

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by applicants.

First Applicant: SZJPO

Second Applicant: SZJPP

Third Applicant: SZJPQ

Fourth Applicant: SZJPR

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1672 of 2008

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 28 July 2008

Date of Last Submission: 28 July 2008

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 28 July 2008

REPRESENTATION

The Applicants: No Appearance by the applicants

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The Application is dismissed under rule 13.03A (c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 due to non-attendance of the applicants.

2. The First, Second and Third applicants are to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1200.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1672 of 2008

SZJPO

First Applicant

SZJPP

Second Applicant

SZJPQ

Third Applicant

SZJPR

Fourth Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which was signed on 18 September 2006 and handed down on 5 October 2006.  The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a Delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicants protection visas.  The applicants filed their application on 30 June 2008 seeking a review of that decision. 

2. I note from the affidavit of Judith Pownall, affirmed 24 July 2008, that there have been previous proceedings for review and that if the application had proceeded today then there would have been an application for summary dismissal. 

3. However, the applicants have not attended.  The matter was called at 12.18 pm, having been listed for hearing at 12 noon.  I stood the matter down until 12.30.  I am informed by Ms Kelso, who appeared for the Minister, that she took the opportunity during the adjournment of telephoning the first applicant, with the assistance of the interpreter in the Gujarati language who was available, to find out where he was.

4. He told her that he had not come to Court and was seeking to withdraw the proceedings.  It is a little bit late to withdraw.  Ms Kelso tells me, and I believe it to be true, that she told the applicant that she would be asking for the application to be dismissed. 

5. In my view, this is an appropriate matter for the application to be dismissed under the provisions of rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrate Court Rules. It is also an appropriate matter for an order for costs in favour of the first respondent. The Minister's lawyers have prepared to deal with this application today and I note that there is a detailed affidavit, affirmed by Ms Pownall, setting out the basis upon which it would have been sought to obtain an order for summary dismissal. As it turns out that is no longer necessary.

6. Accordingly, I propose to dismiss the application under the provisions of rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court rules due to the non- attendance by the applicant at the hearing. The first, second and third applicants are to pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1200.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  A. Coutman

Date:  18 August 2008