SZLHH v Minister for Immigration

[2007] FMCA 1723

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLHH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 1723

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of RRT affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa – where applicant did not attend Court for the hearing – application dismissed under r.13.03A.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.13.03A

Applicant: SZLHH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 2787 of 2007

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 8 October 2007

Date of last submission: 8 October 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 8 October 2007

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Nanson

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The Application is dismissed under Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, due to the non-attendance of the Applicant at the Hearing.

2. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $500.00. 

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2787 of 2007

SZLHH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which was signed on 20^th July 2007. The Applicant filed an application for review and an affidavit in support on 11^th September 2007.

2. The application was returnable in this Court at 10:00am this morning. However, the Applicant has not appeared. No message has been received from the Applicant or anyone on his behalf indicating that the Applicant has been hindered, prevented or delayed in attending Court due to illness or injury or any other matter. Certainly I would be surprised if the Applicant had gone to the Registry at Queens Square by mistake as that happened in the case of another applicant and the Court was informed quite quickly and that Applicant's matter was held in the list until the Applicant arrived.

3. In this case the Applicant has just not attended. The matter was called shortly after 10:00am and called again at about 28 minutes past 10, and called at 10:45am. The Applicant clearly has not attended and it is unlikely that the Applicant will. This is a suitable matter for dismissal under the provisions of Rule 13.03A for the non-attendance of the Applicant. I note that the solicitor for the Minister has undertaken to advise the Applicant in writing within seven days of the provisions of Rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules, and I accept that undertaking.

4. It is a suitable matter for costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  V. Lee

Date:  16 October 2007