SZMVP v Minister for Immigration
[2009] FMCA 178
•4 March 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZMVP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2009] FMCA 178 |
| MIGRATION – Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by the applicant – application dismissed. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rule 13.03C, 16.05 |
| Applicant: | SZMVP |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2666 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 4 March 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 4 March 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 4 March 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr J A C Potts |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application made on 15 October 2008 is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $3,000.
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.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2666 of 2008
| SZMVP |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)
I have before me an application made under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on 15 October 2008 seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal signed on 25 August 2008 which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.
The applicant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”) who arrived in Australia on 19 January 2008 and applied for a protection visa on 31 January 2008.
The applicant appeared in person at the first Court date in this matter on 5 November 2008 before Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones. He was assisted by an interpreter in the Mandarin language at that time. Orders were made for the conduct of this matter including the filing of further documents by the applicant and referral to a lawyer on the panel of the Court’s legal advice scheme.
The matter was set down for final hearing today (4 March 2009) at 10.15am before Lloyd-Jones FM. [The matter was subsequently transferred to my docket.]
When the matter was called today there was no appearance by, or on behalf of, the applicant. The matter was also called outside the Court room of Lloyd-Jones FM. There was still no appearance by the applicant.
Mr Potts who appeared for the first respondent sought dismissal of the application with costs for non-appearance, under the relevant Rules of this Court.
I am satisfied that the applicant clearly had notice of the time, date and place for the final hearing of the matter. There has been an appropriate period between the first Court date and today’s date to enable the applicant to obtain legal advice and file further relevant documents. Nothing has been filed.
Nothing has been heard from the applicant to explain the failure to attend today or to seek any adjournment. When the matter was called, both outside this Court and, more importantly, outside Court 6C [the Court room of Lloyd-Jones FM], there was no appearance by the applicant. It is now well past the scheduled time. [In all, twenty-five minutes were effectively given]. I am satisfied, in the circumstances, that the applicant has had notice, in person, of the time, date and place for the final hearing. There has been no explanation as to the failure to attend.
It is appropriate, in all the circumstances, that the matter be dismissed today. I will accordingly make the order dismissing the application for non appearance.
As to costs, it is appropriate that an order for costs be made. There is nothing before the Court to argue against the making of such an order. The Minister has appeared represented by Counsel and with an instructor. The Minister has filed all the documentation that was required at the first Court date. I note that in looking at the application that was put before the Court, which has not been amended, it is a very “basic” application which makes general reference to jurisdictional error, and a very broad complaint about a denial of procedural fairness, but does not provide any particularity.
The applicant has had ample time to obtain advice, to refine the application and to give some body to those general complaints. I am satisfied in all the circumstances that it is appropriate that a costs order be made.
As to the amount, given the work that has been done by the Minister’s representatives, the briefing of counsel, the involvement of counsel and appearance by counsel today, $3,000 is, in my view, a reasonable amount. In all, I make that order. I will also make an order requiring the Minister’s solicitors to write to the applicant at the address for service notifying him of the orders made today and of Rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Associate: C Darcy
Date: 6 March 2009
0
0
2