FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZNFE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2010] FMCA 181 |
| MIGRATION – Application to set aside orders dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal and an application that the matter be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules– whether in interests of justice to set aside orders – explanation for the applicant’s non-appearance – whether futile to set aside orders. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.65, 91S, 189, 414, 415, 424, 424A, 425, 426A, 430, 476 Federal Magistrates Court Rules, rr.13.03C, 16.05 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read SZNFE v Minister for Immigration and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2010] FMCA 181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of SZNFE v Minister for Immigration, the applicant, SZNFE, sought to set aside orders made by the court on 22 October 2009 due to non-appearance at a hearing. SZNFE argued that the Federal Magistrates Court and the Tribunal had made decisions that were allegedly biased and violated his privacy, which he claimed provided a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance. The court was tasked with determining whether these arguments constituted a reasonable explanation for the applicant's failure to appear at the hearing.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant's concerns about the conduct of the Federal Magistrates Court and the Tribunal provided a reasonable basis for his non-appearance at the hearing. The court needed to assess the validity of the applicant's claims regarding bias and privacy violations, and whether these claims justified his absence from the court on the specified date. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's explanation was sufficient to warrant setting aside the orders made due to his non-appearance.
The court found that the applicant's concerns about the conduct of the Federal Magistrates Court and the Tribunal did not constitute a reasonable explanation for his non-appearance at the hearing on 22 October 2009. The applicant had been given the opportunity to provide reasons for his non-attendance but did not offer any satisfactory explanation. The court also noted that the applicant's arguments regarding bias and privacy violations did not relate to the hearing in question, and thus did not justify his absence. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application to set aside the orders.
ORDERS:
1. The applicant’s application to set aside the orders made by this court on 22 October 2009 be dismissed.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant's concerns about the conduct of the Federal Magistrates Court and the Tribunal provided a reasonable basis for his non-appearance at the hearing. The court needed to assess the validity of the applicant's claims regarding bias and privacy violations, and whether these claims justified his absence from the court on the specified date. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's explanation was sufficient to warrant setting aside the orders made due to his non-appearance.
The court found that the applicant's concerns about the conduct of the Federal Magistrates Court and the Tribunal did not constitute a reasonable explanation for his non-appearance at the hearing on 22 October 2009. The applicant had been given the opportunity to provide reasons for his non-attendance but did not offer any satisfactory explanation. The court also noted that the applicant's arguments regarding bias and privacy violations did not relate to the hearing in question, and thus did not justify his absence. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application to set aside the orders.
ORDERS:
1. The applicant’s application to set aside the orders made by this court on 22 October 2009 be dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The applicant’s application to set aside the orders made by this court on 22 October 2009 be dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
The applicant also contended that the second Tribunal decision was affected by the approach taken by Scarlett FM, in that the second Tribunal’s decision was said to be “vitiated” by “the first Federal Magistrates Court’s biased prejudgment”. Even if the applicant has such a concern it does not provide a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear in this court on 22 October 2009. It was also contended that the “purported” second Tribunal decision “implies a real risk which it, if performed, exceeds its powers and function with relation to the applicant’s privacy”. This contention appears to be made on the basis that after the applicant informed the Tribunal as reconstituted that he would not attend the hearing to which he had been invited, the Tribunal (as it recorded at paragraph 44 of its decision) made inquiries of the Department about whether the applicant had been medically assessed at any time while he had been in detention, especially in relation to his mental health, and commented on the results of such inquiries. The Tribunal made these comments as part of its consideration of whether it should exercise its discretion under s.426A of Act to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it. The applicant’s concern about the conduct of the Tribunal does not establish a reasonable explanation for the applicant’s failure to appear before the court on 22 October 2009. In his affidavit of 7 January 2010 the applicant then stated “[t]he second Magistrate, his (sic) Honour Barnes FM at the first (sic) hearing suggested that present proceeding would be based on the first decision which is worthless for one of authorities rather than on the lengthy present application of the applicant”. It is not clear what this is intended to convey. The first hearing conducted by me in relation to this applicant was on 22 October 2009. The applicant did not attend on that day and the matter was dismissed for non-appearance. No such “suggest[ion]” was made on that occasion (see SZNFE v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2009] FMCA 1058). Even if this is intended to refer to the applicant’s understanding of what occurred at the directions hearing conducted by a registrar, it does not explain his non-appearance on 22 October 2009. The applicant was given the opportunity to make extensive oral submissions in relation to his reasons for non-appearance. He did not elaborate on or clarify this aspect of his concerns. It does not provide a satisfactory explanation for his non-appearance on 22 October 2009. In paragraph five of his affidavit of 7 January 2010, the applicant contended that the Federal Magistrates Court had “been supporting the Tribunal’s failure of law – application in the way of amending the Migration Act (esp. S 420) which is the general provision of the Div 4 of Pt 7 of the Migration Act on the first decision at par [80]. It’s working together”. Insofar as this takes issue with the decision of Scarlett FM it does not provide any reasonable basis for the applicant’s failure to appear at the hearing of 22 October 2009.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.