SZMQK v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 1375
•1 October 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZMQK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 1375 |
| MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – practice and procedure – dismissal pursuant to Rule 13.03A of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 by reason of failure of the applicant to appear. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.1303A(c) |
| Applicant: | SZMQK |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2102 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Emmett FM |
| Hearing date: | 1 October 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 1 October 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 1 October 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| No appearance by the Applicant |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Ms A. Crittenden, Clayton Utz |
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2102 of 2008
| SZMQK |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The first respondent seeks an order pursuant to r.13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 that the application, filed on 14 August 2008, be dismissed by reason of the applicant's failure to appear at today's first Court date.
The application purports to be signed by the applicant, although I do note that the date of the signature is left unmarked. The document was filed on 14 August 2008 together with an affidavit in support annexing the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 18 July 2008. The affidavit appears to have been sworn by the applicant and affirmed by a Justice of the Peace. I do note that the signature on the affidavit that has been affirmed appears to be the same as the signature on the application.
The application clearly identifies this afternoon as the first Court date at 2.15 p.m. It is now 2.57 p.m. and there is no appearance by the applicant. I am informed by the solicitor for the first respondent that the interpreter attempted to telephone the applicant. A person answered and said that Mr Ben Zipser, of counsel, was appearing on behalf of the applicant this afternoon. However, there has been no appearance by Mr Zipser. The first respondent's solicitor also informed the Court that she attempted to contact Mr Zipser and spoke to his clerk who indicated that the clerk was not aware of any appearance by Mr Zipser at the hearing of this afternoon's matter.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that there has been no appearance by the applicant and I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of this afternoon's proceeding. There has been no contact otherwise by the applicant or any person on behalf of the applicant either with the Court or to the first respondent seeking any adjournment. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the order sought by the first respondent be made.
ORDERS DELIVERED
RECORDED : NOT TRANSCRIBED
ORDERS DELIVERED
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM
Associate: E. Maconachie
Date: 7 October 2008
0
0
1