SZNNO v Minister for Immigration

[2009] FMCA 614

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZNNO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2009] FMCA 614

MIGRATION – Review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by the applicant at the hearing before the Court – application dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c)

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001(Cth), r.13.03C(1)(c)

Applicant: SZNNO

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &

CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1002 of 2009

Judgment of: Nicholls FM

Hearing date: 29 June 2009

Date of Last Submission: 29 June 2009

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 29 June 2009

REPRESENTATION

Appearing for the Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Applicant: Nil

Appearing for the Respondents: Ms N Johnson

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The application made on 28 April 2009 is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $4,200.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1002 of 2009

SZNNO

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore — revised from transcript)

1. I have before me an application made on 28 April 2009 under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), made on 25 March 2009, which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.

2. When the matter was called for final hearing today, there was no appearance by the applicant.

3. I am satisfied that I should proceed today, as requested by the Minister in this matter, to dismiss the application pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

4. I accept Ms Johnson’s submissions that the applicant has had reasonable notice that the matter was set down for final hearing today, before me, at 2.15pm, in this Court.  I am confident in that view because the applicant attended at the first Court date in this matter on 20 May 2009.  On that occasion he was assisted by an interpreter in the Mandarin language.  He was told at that time by the Court that his matter was set down for final hearing at 2.15pm on 29 June 2009, in Court 7A of this building, the location of the Courtroom being the same today as it was on the first Court date. 

5. I also take into account respondent’s exhibit 1 (“RE1”), being a letter sent by express post to the applicant at the address for service from the first respondent’s solicitors, reminding the applicant that the matter had been listed for hearing, also enclosing a copy of the first respondent’s submissions, and putting the applicant on notice that any failure to attend may lead to the Minister seeking dismissal for non-attendance and an order as to costs. 

6. First, I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the matter today, and second, that there has been no request for an adjournment. The Court has not otherwise heard from the applicant to explain the inability to attend or the non-appearance, nor to seek any adjournment.  On that basis, it is appropriate that the order sought be made.

Costs

1. I am satisfied that an order as to costs should be made in this matter.  There is nothing before the Court to argue against the making of such an order in the usual course. 

2. As to the amount, $4,200 is, in my view, a reasonable amount in all the circumstances. I note the work that has been done by the Minister’s solicitors, including the preparation, filing and serving of multiple copies of the Court Book, the formal response, the filing and serving of written submissions, various attendances at Court, correspondence with the applicant, and consideration that would have taken place in response to the application.

3. I am satisfied that the amount sought is a reasonable amount, and I will make an order for costs in that amount. 

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM

Associate:  C Darcy

Date:  24 August 2009