SZKRJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 271

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKRJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 271

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 25(2B)
Federal Court Rules, Order 52, rule 38A

SZKRJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD2385 OF 2007

LOGAN J
4 MARCH 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD2385 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZKRJ
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MARCH 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed on the basis of non-attendance.

2.The Appellant pay the First Respondent’s costs of, and incidental to the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD2385 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZKRJ
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE:	4 MARCH 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was listed today for the hearing of an appeal from the Federal Magistrate at 9.30 am. I delayed coming in for a short time after that in the indulgent hope that there might be an attendance by or on behalf of the Appellant. Upon convening the court, the name of the matter was called, by direction, three times by the court officer. There was no attendance in response to the matter being called at the door of the court, as there had been no attendance slightly earlier when the case was formally called on for hearing. In those circumstances, and in the absence of there being any written submissions, of the alternatives presented on the one hand by O 52 r 38A and on the other hand under s 25(2B)(BB)(ii) of the Act, it seems to me that the more appropriate course to take is to act pursuant to the statute and to dismiss the case on the basis of a failure on the part of the Appellant to attend a hearing of the appeal.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Logan.

Associate:

Dated:        6 March 2008

Counsel for the Applicant:	No Appearance by the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	4 March 2008
Date of Judgment:	4 March 2008