SZKDL v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 1110
•28 July 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZKDL & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 1110 |
| MIGRATION – RRT decision – second application for judicial review – no appearance by the applicants – no arguable case – application dismissed at show-cause hearing. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.03A(e), 44.12 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) |
| SZKDL & Anor v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1806 SZKDL & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 161 SZKDL & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] HCASL 294 |
| First Applicant: | SZKDL |
| Second Applicant: | SZKDM |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1569 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Smith FM |
| Hearing date: | 28 July 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 28 July 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | No Appearance |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr R Baird |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed under Rule 44.12(1)(a) on the ground that it does not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed.
The applicants must pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $1,500.
Direct that no further application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 28 December 2006 reference 060698951, or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 15 July 2006, or for review of any other administrative decision or action by any person or tribunal relating to the application for a protection visa received on 29 June 2006, shall be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1569 of 2008
| SZKDL |
First Applicant
| SZKDM |
Second Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
This is an application seeking judicial review under s.476 of the Migration Act of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 28 December 2006. The validity of that decision has already been upheld in judgments of this Court (see SZKDL & Anor v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1806), the Federal Court (see SZKDL & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 161), and the High Court (see SZKDL & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] HCASL 294).
The present application discloses no grounds of review with particulars giving them any substance, and certainly raises no basis for reopening the previous litigation.
Neither applicants appeared at the first Court date on 15 July 2008.
On the previous day, the registry received a purported medical certificate without any accompanying application for adjournment.
The medical certificate is dated 12 July 2008 and is not persuasive.
It says “This is to certify that (the applicant husband) has severe back spasm and may not be able to travel to Sydney for at least one week”.
Notwithstanding my doubts about the medical certificate, I adjourned the application to today for a hearing under r.44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. I directed that my order should be served on the applicants, with notice that further adjournment on medical grounds must be supported by an appropriate medical report. I am satisfied that my order was served in accordance with my order, both at the applicants’ stated postal address and at their residential address.
There has been no attendance today at the hearing appointed for 10.15 am, and it is now 10.36 am. I have just been passed an email from the registry suggesting that some unknown person telephoned at 10.17 am and stated that “his wife and child were in India and he would not make it to the hearing”. I am not at all sure that this was the applicant in the present matter, but if it was the applicant this message was not an appropriate way to seek an adjournment of the hearing.
I am not persuaded that I should adjourn the hearing again. Rather, I have decided that I should proceed, as invited by the Minister, with the show cause hearing in the absence of the applicant pursuant to r.13.03A(e) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
As I have indicated above, the application has no merit whatsoever, but appears to be an abuse of process. I am therefore not satisfied that it raises an arguable case for the making of the orders sought, and I consider it is appropriate today to dismiss it under r.44.12(1)(a).
I consider that it is also appropriate to direct the registry not to receive further applications under s.476 in relation to the applicants’ protection visa application unless the Court’s leave is first obtained.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM
Associate: Michael Abood
Date: 6 August 2008
0
3
2