SZKGO v Minister for Immigration

Case

[2007] FMCA 374

12 March 2007


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKGO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 374
MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of RRT decision affirming decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa – applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China – where applicant failed to attend Federal Magistrates Court hearing.
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.03A
Applicant: SZKGO
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File Number: SYG 688 of 2007
Judgment of: Scarlett FM
Hearing date: 12 March 2007
Date of Last Submission: 12 March 2007
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 12 March 2007

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance
Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

  1. The title of the first respondent is changed to Minister for Immigration & Citizenship.

  2. The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) due to the non-attendance by the applicant at Court.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $400.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 688 of 2007

SZKGO

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

  1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The application and supporting affidavit were filed on


    26th February 2007.  The application is before the Court today as its first Court date.  There is no appearance by the applicant. That is a regrettable situation as there is a solicitor available who would appear for the applicant on a pro-bono basis if the applicant were here to give him instructions or indeed seek his advice.  There is a Mandarin interpreter available.

  2. The matter was called at 10:13am and again at 10:30am.  There was no appearance.  During the time between when the matter was called at 10:13am and the time when the matter was again called at 10:30am my associate checked to see if any message had been received from the applicant or from someone on the applicant's behalf indicating an inability to attend.  No such message has been received by the Court. 


    I am informed by Ms Palmer, the solicitor appearing for the respondent Minister, that she has checked with her office to see whether any message has been received from the applicant or anyone on the applicant's behalf.  She has told me that no such message has been received.

  3. I am also informed by Mr Prince, solicitor, that the Mandarin interpreter who was available had attempted to ring the applicant on the mobile phone number that was provided on the application.  All that came was an unusual tone and it was not possible to speak to the applicant or presumably leave any sort of message.  There is no explanation for the applicant's non-appearance.

  4. Whilst Mr Prince has suggested that there would be no detriment to the respondent in adjourning the matter for a week to see if the applicant turns up, in my view that is not a course that is desirable to follow. 

  5. The Court will not grant adjournments unless there is some good reason and I have earlier this morning adjourned a matter for further mention in order to satisfy myself that an interpreter in a suitable language was available for the assistance of the applicant.  In this case we have an interpreter, we have a solicitor who could assist and we have no explanation as to why the applicant has not appeared.

  6. I do propose to dismiss the matter under the provisions of r. 13.03A(c).  I will make a formal order changing the title of the first respondent.

  7. I think this is a suitable matter for a costs order and the amount of $400.00 is certainly within the scale.  It is hardly an unreasonable order.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  S.Polley

Date:  20 March 2007

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1