SZNGT v Minister for Immigration

[2009] FMCA 221

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZNGT & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2009] FMCA 221

MIGRATION – Review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance before Court – application summarily dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

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

Applicant: SZNGT & ORS

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 447 of 2009

Judgment of: Nicholls FM

Hearing date: 18 March 2009

Date of Last Submission: 18 March 2009

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 18 March 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Applicant: No appearance

Appearance for the Respondents: Mr G Johnson

Solicitors for the Respondents: DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. The application made on 25 February 2009 is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

2. The first and second-named applicants 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 applicants at the address for service and to the home address notifying the applicants 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 447 of 2009

SZNGT & ORS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore; Revised from transcript)

1. An application was filed in this Court on 25 February 2009.  This was accompanied by an affidavit of the first-named applicant annexing the Tribunal decision record.  From the annexure to that affidavit it appears that the first-named applicant has been in Australia since July 2002, and an application for protection was made in July 2008.

2. The applicant, I note incidentally, was invited to a hearing before the Tribunal having been refused a protection visa application, and did not attend at that hearing. In any event, before the Court the matter was set down for directions at 9.30am Wednesday 11 March 2009 before me at Court 7A, John Maddison Tower, Sydney. That would have been communicated to the first-named applicant and indeed to all the applicants.

3. When the matter was called at that time there was no appearance.  The matter was stood down the list on that day and some 50 minutes after the scheduled time there was still no appearance by the first-named applicant or any of the other applicants in this matter.  I therefore set the matter down for directions for 9.30am today.  When the matter was called again there was no appearance by any of the applicants.  I note, and take into account, the respondent’s exhibits 1 and 2 (RE 1 and RE 2) being communications with the applicants sent to the home address as provided in the application.  I also note the respondent’s exhibits 3 and 4 (RE 3 and RE 4) being communications with the applicants sent to the address for service as provided in the application.

4. I am satisfied that in all the circumstances the applicants had notice of the matter set down again today.  There has been no appearance by any of the applicants.  There has been no explanation offered to the Court, or to the first respondent’s solicitors, for any difficulty or inability to attend, and nor has the Court otherwise received any application for any further adjournment of this matter.

5. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the applicants had notice. The notice was for a reasonable period and they failed to attend. I draw from that the inference that for whatever reason they do not wish to attend. It is appropriate in all the circumstances that the respondent not be further vexed in this matter and put to any further expense. If the applicants choose to seek to agitate the matter at some future time the rules of this Court provide for an avenue there under r.16.05 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

6. I also have before me an application for costs.  There is nothing before the Court to argue against the making of a costs order. The applicants made their application and have failed to attend Court on two occasions. I accept that the first respondent has started to prepare documentation, and has taken steps to respond to the application, and I also note two appearances by solicitors at Court in relation to this matter.

7. There is nothing to argue against the making of an order and I will make that order in the amount sought, being $1,000, which is consistent with the guideline set out in the relevant schedule to the rules.  In any event, it appears to me to be a reasonable amount given the work that would have been done at this stage of the proceeding.

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:  19 March 2009