SZLVT v Minister for Immigration

[2008] FMCA 468

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLVT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2008] FMCA 468

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Tribunal decision – no appearance by the applicant – application dismissed for non-appearance.

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

Applicant: SZLVT

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 4 of 2008

Judgment of: Nicholls FM

Hearing date: 2 April 2008

Date of Last Submission: 2 April 2008

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 2 April 2008

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Nil

Solicitors for the Applicant: Nil

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms McDonald

Solicitors for the Respondents: DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. The application made on 2 January 2008 is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $1,000.

3. Within seven (7) days of the making of these orders, the first respondent’s solicitors write to the applicant at the address for service notifying the applicant of the orders made today and of rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.  

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 4 of 2008

SZLVT

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I am satisfied that the applicant had adequate and proper notice of the matter having been set down for the first court date today by way of the advice notification that he received at the time of making his application, where it is noted that the time and date for the first court date was to be 9.30am on 2 April 2008.

2. When the matter was called the applicant did not appear.  I stood the matter down.  The matter was called outside this Court and in the foyer of this building, and the applicant has still not appeared. I note that it is now well past the allotted time for hearing.  The Court has not received any explanation as to the applicant’s inability to attend today, nor has there been any request for any adjournment of the first court date. 

   
   

   I also take into account Respondent’s Exhibit 1, being a letter from the first respondent’s solicitors to the applicant dated 8 January 2008, which was sent to the address for service. This letter reminded the applicant of the matter being set down today at 9.30am, and also put the applicant on notice that if he did not attend, the matter could proceed to dismissal with costs for non-appearance.

3. I note that the first respondent has sought costs in the sum of $1,000.
   I am satisfied that the amount sought is a reasonable amount in the circumstances and I will make an order in that amount. Noting, of course, that while I’m not strictly bound by the relevant schedule to the Rules, that it is a guide as to what may be reasonable in particular circumstances.

4. I am satisfied, therefore, that the applicant has had notice. The applicant has not appeared. There is no explanation for that failure to appear, nor is there any request for an adjournment. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate that I proceed to dismiss the application and I do so. I will also make an order that the applicant be notified as to the provisions of r.16.05.

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

Associate:  C Darcy

Date:  14 April 2008