SZLVO v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 957
•3 July 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZLVO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 957 |
| MIGRATION – No appearance – expression of concern about anonymity of migration agent. |
| Applicant: | SZLVO |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 3986 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 3 July 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 3 July 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 3 July 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | In person |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
Applicant to pay the First Respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $1,800.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3986 of 2007
| SZLVO |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The original application in this matter was filed on 31 December 2007. On 24 January 2008 the applicant appears to have attended a call-over when orders were made for the matter to be heard before me today at 10.15a.m. in this court. The applicant was also ordered to file an amended application on or before 7 April. The applicant complied with the order of the Registrar by filing an amended application on 7 April giving out his address for receiving mail as 198/226 Elizabeth Street, Sydney. He did nothing further. On 26 June 2008 the solicitors for the Minister wrote to the applicant reminding him about the hearing today and sending him a copy of the respondent's submissions. The respondent did not attend at 10.15a.m. and had not arrived by the time this case was called outside the court at 10.35a.m.
In the circumstances I dismiss the application. I order that the Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs which I assess in the sum of $1,800.00.
If I may be permitted I would wish to say something about the addresses given by applicants in these matters. The applicant in this case has given an address all the way through for service of documents as 198/226 Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills. He has also given a home address to the Department. The Tribunal and the solicitors for the Minister are not obliged to communicate with the applicant at his home address and there is little doubt that the applicant in this particular case has received documentation that has gone to 198/226 Elizabeth Street. I do not know what 198/226 Elizabeth Street is, I suspect it may be the offices of a migration agent but could equally be a newsagent which has post office boxes.
It is a common address, however, as are a number of such addresses.
If it is a migration agent then it seems to be wrong that a migration agent should be involved in assistance to an applicant without identifying him or herself either to the court or to the Department or the Tribunal or to the solicitors for the Minister. It is not appropriate for people to provide migration services, no doubt for a cost, and remain anonymous. It does not assist in the administration of justice.
It probably does not assist applicants and it is a practice that I would personally like to see stopped. If a migration agent wishes to become involved in any manner in relation to an application for a protection visa they should be identified.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0