SZNHU v Minister for Immigration
[2009] FMCA 316
•6 April 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZNHU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2009] FMCA 316 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – interlocutory dismissal of reinstatement application – non appearance by the applicants. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rule 2001, r.13.03C |
| Applicant: | SZNHU |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 556 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 6 April 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 6 April 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 6 April 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No Appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The Application is dismissed under Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 due to the non-attendance of the Applicant.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sim of $700.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 556 of 2009
| SZNHU |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
The substantive application is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal that was made on 16 February 2009. Unfortunately the applicant has not appeared. The application was filed with this Court on 9 March 2009 and allocated a first Court date on 30 March 2009. The applicant did not attend Court on that day.
According to the Court record there was no appearance by the applicant at 12.05 pm on 30 March 2009. At the request of the solicitor for the first respondent, Ms Dinihan, I adjourned the application for a week in order to give the applicant a further opportunity to attend. I directed the solicitor for the first respondent to write to the applicant and inform him of the date and advise what steps may be proposed if the applicant chose not to attend.
The application was listed today at 11.45 am. That time was chosen specifically because the applicant has given an address in Griffith, New South Wales. It is within the knowledge of the Court that many applicants from that area of the State travel up to Sydney on the morning of the hearing by bus and the bus arrives in at Central Station which is a bit less than a kilometre away from the Court at some time after 11 am. Rather than list the matter with other matters at 11.30 am I allowed an extra quarter of an hour until 11.45 in case the bus had been delayed or the applicant had some difficulty travelling from Central Railway Station to the Court.
That was all to no avail because the applicant did not attend when the matter was called at 11.48 am. I stood the matter down to allow a bit more time and called the matter again at 12.04 pm. Still, there was no appearance by the applicant or by any person on the applicant's behalf. No message has been received at the Court from the applicant explaining his absence on the last occasion or indicating any difficulty in attending Court today.
There has been no communication from the applicant at all. Solicitors for the Minister have written to the applicant and advised him of the adjourned date. A copy of the letter to the applicant has been tendered and I note that relevantly it says,
His Honour has re-listed your matter for further directions on 6 April 2009 at 11.45 am in the Federal Magistrates Court, John Madison Tower, 88 Goulburn Street, Sydney. If you do not attend the further directions hearing either in person or by legal representative we are instructed to seek to have your matter dismissed with costs.
The letter could not be clearer. The letter has set out exactly what the Minister's lawyers would be applying to do if the applicant chose not to attend Court. In my view it is appropriate to dismiss the application according to r.13.3C(1)(c) because of the non-attendance of the applicant.
It is also appropriate to make an order for costs on behalf of the first respondent minister. The amount sought is $700 which in my view is an appropriate figure.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: A. Coutman
Date: 9 April 2009
2
0
1