SZLSA v Minister for Immigration

[2009] FMCA 962

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLSA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2009] FMCA 962

MIGRATION – No appearance.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Applicant: SZLSA

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1640 of 2009

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 9 September 2009

Date of Last Submission: 9 September 2009

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 9 September 2009

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. Substantive application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

2. Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $1,500.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1640 of 2009

SZLSA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter a substantive application was filed with this court on 10 July 2009 seeking judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 15 October 2007.  On 17 July 2009 the Respondent’s Solicitors filed an affidavit sworn by Ms Jennifer Vu which exhibited a number of documents including the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, a previous application to this court in respect of judicial review of that decision, the decision of Nicholls FM upon the review, the decision of Perram J on appeal from the decision of Nicholls FM and the decision of Gummow and Kiefel JJ in the High Court of Australia in respect of the application for special leave to appeal the decision of Perram J.

2. On 13 August 2009 the Respondent took out an application in a case pursuant to Rule 13.09 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (the “Rules”) seeking orders under Rule 13.10 for the dismissal of these proceedings on the grounds that they were res judicata or otherwise an abuse of the processes of the court. 

3. The application was set down for hearing at 10.15a.m. today. I heard evidence from Ms Vu that on 17 August 2009 she arranged for a copy of the application although not, it would appear, a copy of the affidavit, to be sent to the Applicant and I am satisfied from her evidence that the application was served upon the Applicant by method of service approved by the Rules to the address for service which the Applicant gave in his original application.

4. I note that there was a callover of this matter before a Registrar on 30 July 2009 which the Applicant did not attend. The Applicant did not attend the hearing of this application by the Respondents at 10.15a.m. and he was not present when his name was called outside the court at 10.30a.m. nor is he here as I am delivering judgment at 10.45a.m. In those circumstances I propose to dismiss the substantive application pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules and order that the Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs which I assess in the sum of $1,500.00.

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

Associate: 

Date:  30 September 2009