SZLIT v Minister for Immigration

[2008] FMCA 640

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLIT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2008] FMCA 640

MIGRATION – Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance before the Court – application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Rules.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.03A(c), 16.05

Applicant: SZLIT

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2915 of 2007

Judgment of: Nicholls FM

Hearing date: 16 May 2008

Date of Last Submission: 16 May 2008

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 16 May 2008

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Nil

Solicitors for the Applicant: Nil

Appearance for the Respondents: Ms P Nadagopal

Solicitors for the Respondents: DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. The application made on 21 September 2007 is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $2,440.

3. Within seven 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 and of Rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2915 of 2007

SZLIT

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 today an application by the first respondent in this matter seeking dismissal of the application made on 21 September 2007 made under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) which sought review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal signed on 31 July 2007, and handed down on 21 August 007,which affirmed decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.

2. The matter was ultimately set down for final hearing before the Court today at 9.30am before me.  When the matter was called at 9.30am, there was no appearance by the applicant.  I adjourned for a short moment in case the applicant was running late.  The matter was again called outside this court at 9.50am, and again, there was no appearance by the applicant.

3. In those circumstances the first respondent’s representative, Ms P Nandagopal, sought that the application be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (“the Rules”).

4. I have in evidence before me the affidavit of Lauren Marie Schoenfeld which annexes a copy of a letter sent to the applicant on 9 May 2008, both to his address for service and home address, notifying the applicant of the time, date, and place for the hearing insofar as the place is the John Maddison Tower, 88 Goulburn Street.

5. I also have before me Respondent’s Exhibit 1 (“RE 1”), a copy of a letter dated 12 March 2008 sent to the applicant at the address for service, notifying the applicant that the final hearing in this matter had been re-listed to today at 9.30am before me at Court 7A, John Maddison Tower.  The Court has not received any communication from the applicant explaining his absence today, nor has any request for an adjournment been received.

6. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant had notice, reasonable notice, that the final hearing in relation to his application had been scheduled at 9.30am today before me in Court 7A at John Maddison Tower.  The applicant has not appeared and, noting again now that it is nearly 25 minutes past the scheduled starting time, in all the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the first respondent’s application be granted.  The applicant has chosen not to press his application at a final hearing, so I will make the order dismissing the application.

7. As is my usual practice in matters of this kind, I will also make an order that the first respondent’s legal representatives write to the applicant notifying the applicant of r.16.05 of the Rules.

8. I also have an application before me today for an order for costs to be made set in the amount of $2,440.  I note firstly that there is nothing before the Court to indicate that such an order should not be made.  In my view, it is appropriate in all the circumstances that a costs order be made.  The applicant put his application before the Court, as is his right.  But that, however, caused the first respondent’s legal representatives to respond, and work of a legal nature was therefore generated.  In that regard, I note that there are multiple copies of the Court Book that have been prepared, a response has been filed, written submissions were filed and served in this matter, and I note two appearances by solicitors before the Court in relation to this matter.  I also note communications with the applicant.  I am also, therefore, satisfied that the amount sought, given the work that has been done, is in all the circumstances, a reasonable amount.  I will make that order.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM

Associate:  A Douglas-Baker

Date:  22 May 2008