SZKDD v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 1964
•16 November 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZKDD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 1964 |
| MIGRATION – Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance before the Court – no application for adjournment – application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.03A(c) |
| Applicant: | SZKDD |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 340 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 16 November 2007 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 16 November 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 16 November 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Ms R Francois |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application made on 5 February 2007, and amended on 4 May2007, and further amended on 26 June 2007, is dismissed pursuant to Rule13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $5,000.
Within seven (7) days of the making of these orders the first respondent’s solicitors write to the applicant by letter sent to the address for service notifying the applicant of the orders made today and of Rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 340 of 2007
| SZKDD |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)
I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the matter today. The matter has been called twice outside the Court. There has been no appearance. It is now twenty-three minutes past the scheduled time for the commencement of the hearing and I am satisfied, having heard nothing else from the applicant, that no adjournment has been sought and no explanation has been proffered as to the applicant’s inability to appear, so it is appropriate now that I proceed to dismiss the application. I therefore make an order pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (“the Rules”). I note also that the Minister is pressing costs.
On the issue of costs, it is appropriate that an order for costs be made. First, there is nothing before me today that would cause me not to make that order. Second, as to the amount of $5,000 that is sought, I take the view that I am not bound by the amounts set out in the relevant Schedule to the Rules; nonetheless they are a useful indicator and guide. What I am guided by, ultimately, is what is a reasonable amount in the circumstances.
I note in this matter that the applicant has put three applications before the Court: an original application, an amended application and a further amended application. While the matters pleaded do not, on their face, appear to involve any matters of great complexity, the Minister has nonetheless been put to the expense of preparing multiple copies of the Court book. I note from the Court’s file that there have been three attendances by solicitors. Further, Counsel has been briefed in this matter and has appeared at the final hearing, written submissions have been prepared on behalf of the Minister by Counsel and have been filed. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the amount sought of $5,000 is reasonable in all those circumstances.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Associate: A Douglas-Baker
Date: 23 November 2007
0
0
1