SZNCG v Minister for Immigration
[2009] FMCA 61
•4 February 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZNCG & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2009] FMCA 61 |
| MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance at first Court date – application dismissed for non-appearance. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.13.03C(1)(c), 16.05 |
| Applicants: | SZNCG & SZNCH |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 3419 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 4 February 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 4 February 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 4 February 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Appearance for the Respondents: | Ms D Attard |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application made on 23 December 2008 is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
The first-named Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs set in the amount of $550.
Within 7 days of the making of these orders the First Respondent’s solicitors write to the Applicants at their address for service notifying them of the orders made today and of r.16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3419 of 2008
| SZNCG & SZNCH |
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 seeking dismissal of the application made on 23 December 2008 under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (“the Rules”) on the grounds of non-appearance by the applicants.
In support of the application for summary dismissal, the first respondent tendered a copy of a letter from the first respondent’s solicitors dated 5 January 2009 and addressed to the applicants at the address for receiving correspondence. The letter has been marked as respondent’s Exhibit 1 (“RE 1”).
I note in particular that RE 1 repeats the information that would have been provided to the applicants at the time of making their application to this Court, that information being that this matter had been listed before me today at 9.30 am on 4 February 2009 in Court 7A, Level 7, 88 Goulburn Street, Sydney.
When the matter was called, there was no appearance by the applicants. I note from the material before the Court that the first-named applicant is the mother of the second-named applicant who is a child who is just 12 months of age. In light of that, I consider that I am really dealing with the first-named applicant in respect to this application.
I am satisfied that the first-named applicant had notice, both by way of what was provided to her at the time of making the application, and what was provided by way of respondent’s Exhibit 1, that the matter was listed before me today. There is no appearance, and it is now 45 minutes past the time when this matter was listed for a first Court date. Nothing has been heard from the first-named applicant. I am satisfied on that basis that this matter should be dismissed for non-appearance, as has been sought by the first respondent today. I therefore make that order.
I also have before me an application for costs in the sum of $550, being preparation for, and attendance at, the first Court date in this matter. As to the amount sought, in all the circumstances, $550 is a reasonable amount for the work that would have been done by the first respondent’s solicitors in responding to the application. I note that it is within the bounds of reasonableness, and I therefore make an order for costs in the sum of $550.
It is also appropriate that I make an order making reference to r.16.05 of the Rules providing that the first respondent’s solicitors write to the applicants at their address for service notifying them of the orders made today and of r.1605 of the Rules.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Associate: A Douglas-Baker
Date: 10 February 2009
0
0
1