SZKKX v Minister for Immigration

[2008] FMCA 323

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKKX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2008] FMCA 323

MIGRATION – Review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance of applicant – application dismissed.

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

Applicant: SZKKX

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1059 of 2007

Judgment of: Nicholls FM

Hearing date: 25 February 2008

Date of Last Submission: 25 February 2008

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 25 February 2008

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Nil

Solicitors for the Applicant: Nil

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms V McWilliam

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The application made on 2 April 2007 is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $4,200.

3. 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 1059 of 2007

SZKKX

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me an application filed in this Court on 2 April 2007, which seeks review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal signed on 15 February 2007, which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.  The applicant, also on that day, filed an affidavit made on 28 March 2007 annexing the Tribunal’s decision. 

2. The history of that matter before the Court is that the applicant appeared in person assisted by a Mandarin interpreter on 26 April 2007 before a Registrar of this Court, and subsequently before another Registrar on 22 June 2007, when the matter was set down for hearing before me at 2.15pm, 25 February 2008, 88 Goulburn Street, Sydney. 

3. I note that on the first occasion, a number of orders were made by the Registrar relating to the conduct of this case, including the filing of any additional material by the applicant. Despite this, nothing has been filed by the applicant in support of his application since that time. 

4. I also have before me respondent’s exhibit one, being a letter from the first respondent’s solicitors to the applicant sent to the address for service, reminding the applicant that the final hearing was on today, including the time, date and place, and also enclosing written submissions.

5. When the matter was called at 2.15pm, and when the matter was subsequently called at 2.34pm, there was no appearance by the applicant.  There has been no approach to the Court for any adjournment and nor has there been any approach to the Court with any explanation as to the applicant’s inability or failure to attend today.

6. In the all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has had notice of the final hearing of his matter, the time, the date and the place.  Despite that notice, the applicant has not appeared and in the absence of any explanation it is appropriate, in my view, to grant the application made by the Minister and to dismiss the application for want of appearance.

7. The Minister has also sought costs in this matter.  I note that an amount of $4200 is sought.  It is appropriate that a costs order be made as there is nothing before the Court to argue against the making of such an order.  If the applicant had intended not to press his application, there is nothing to indicate that he made any attempt to communicate, certainly not with the Court, nor with the Minister’s solicitors with a view to perhaps reducing any costs.  In all, a costs order should be made, as there is nothing to argue against the making of such an order and the amount sought is a reasonable amount in all the circumstances, noting that it is still below the amount recommended in the relevant schedule to the Rules of this Court and I will make the order in the amount sought by the Minister.

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

Associate:  C Darcy

Date:  1 April 2008