SZJTU v Minister for Immigration

[2007] FMCA 2022

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJTU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 2022

MIGRATION – Review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance on the part of the applicant – application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.1303A(c), 16.05

Applicant: SZJTU

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3529 of 2006

Judgment of: Nicholls FM

Hearing date: 3 December 2007

Date of Last Submission: 3 December 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 3 December 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Nil

Solicitors for the Applicant: Nil

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms A Mitchelmore

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The reference to the first respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.”

2. The application made on 29 November 2006, and amended on 30 April 2007, is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $2,500.

4. Within seven (7) days, the first respondent write to the applicant advising the applicant of the orders made today and of the effect of Rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3529 of 2006

SZJTU

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me an application by the Minister that this matter be dismissed for want of appearance by the applicant.  I note that it is now coming up to 20 minutes past the scheduled time for the commencement of the hearing.  I note that the applicant attended the First Court Date in this matter before a Registrar of this Court.  He was assisted by an interpreter in the Mandarin language and signed short minutes of order, which subsequently became orders made by the Registrar.  Importantly, at that time, and with an interpreter present, the applicant was advised that his matter was set down for final hearing before me at 2.15pm on 3 December 2007 at John Maddison Tower. 

2. I note further, and take into account Respondent’s Exhibit 1 (“RE 1”), which is a letter sent by the Minister’s solicitors to the applicant, dated 23 November 2007, enclosing by way of service a copy of the Minister’s submissions in this matter.  I am satisfied that in light of that material that the applicant had notice of the time, date and place at which the final hearing for his matter was scheduled.  When the matter was called at 2.15pm this afternoon outside this Court there was no appearance by the applicant.  When the matter was called 20 minutes later, again there was still no appearance by the applicant. 

3. The Court has not heard anything from the applicant, either by way of seeking an adjournment or any explanation for any inability to attend today, or indeed any explanation for the failure to attend. Nor has anything of that nature been otherwise put to the Court by the representatives of the first respondent. In all the circumstances, therefore, I am satisfied that the matter should proceed today pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 and I dismiss the application on that basis.  In the absence of anything before me today to argue otherwise, I agree with the Minister’s application in that regard and will make the order accordingly.

4. It is appropriate on what is before me that a costs order be made in this matter.  First, there is nothing before me to indicate that it should not be made.  Secondly, as to the amount, bearing in mind the work that has been done by the Minister’s legal representatives responding to the application made by the applicant, and indeed the amended application, including multiple copies of the Court Book, attendances on two occasions by a solicitor, the briefing of counsel, preparation of submissions by counsel and attendance today by counsel, the amount sought of $2,500 is, in my view, certainly a reasonable amount.  I therefore will make the order.

5. I will also, as is usual in these matters, make an order that the applicant be notified of the orders made today and of the existence of Rule 16.05, unless the Minister has any argument against the making of such an order.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM

Associate:  A Douglas-Baker

Date:  20 December 2007