SZKDU v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 1190
•17 July 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZKDU & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 1190 |
| MIGRATION – Dismissal for non appearance – where applicants were served with copy of decision. |
| Migration Act 1958, sub-s.477(1) Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001 |
| Minister for Immigration vSZKKC [2007] FCAFC |
| Applicants: | SZKDU, SZKDV |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File number: | SYG376 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 17 July 2007 |
| Date of last submission: | 17 July 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 17 July 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | DLA Phillips Fox |
ORDERS
Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
Applicants to pay the first respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $1,500.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 376 of 2007
| SZKDU, SZKDV |
Applicants
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter I have been asked to hear a notice of motion filed in the court on 18 May 2007 seeking dismissal of the proceedings on the grounds that the applicants failed to file an application within 28 days of the notification of the decision as required by sub-s.477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the “Act”).
I am sensible of the existence of a recent decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court Minister for Immigration vSZKKC [2007] FCAFC 105 the ratio of which was to require the Tribunal to personally serve a copy of the decision upon an applicant. In this particular case that occurred on 30 November 2005. The first named applicant attended at the counter of the Refugee Review Tribunal, received a copy of the decision and signed for it [CB 91]. There is therefore no problem relating to her receipt of the decision to contend with.
I make the point above because the applicants did not appear at the hearing of the notice of motion which took place at 9.30 am on 12 July 2007. On that day the matter was called again by the court at approximately 9.45a.m. and the applicants were still not in attendance.
In all the circumstances there does not seem to me to be any impediment in my dismissing the matter pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. I order that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs which I assess in the sum of $1,500.00.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
1
2