SZNSO v Minister for Immigration
[2009] FMCA 731
•27 July 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZNSO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2009] FMCA 731 |
| MIGRATION – Practice & Procedure – whether venue should be changed to Melbourne – applicant from Victoria seeking a review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal in Melbourne – where applicant opposes transfer – where respondent does not oppose but does not actively seek transfer. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.8.01 |
| Applicant: | SZNSO |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1582 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 27 July 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 27 July 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 27 July 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | In Person |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
The matter is listed for final hearing at 10:15am on 3 September 2009 in Court 7B, Level 7 88 Goulburn Street Sydney.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1582 of 2009
| SZNSO |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
The application before the court is an application for review of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant resides in the state of Victoria. The decision was made by the Refugee Review Tribunal in Melbourne and handed down in Melbourne. However, the applicant has chosen to file his application in Sydney. He has attended court today. It has been explained to the applicant that this matter could be heard by the Federal Magistrates Court in its Melbourne registry. It has also been explained to the applicant that if the matter is not transferred it would be listed for final hearing in Sydney and it would be necessary for him to travel to Sydney again for the final hearing.
I understand from the solicitor appearing for the Minister that the applicant is receiving some advice from a migration agent. Whilst I have some concern that a migration agent may be offering advice on legal matters in return for money, my view is that if the applicant is aware that he does have the right to have the matter heard in Melbourne but chooses not to exercise that right, then it is inappropriate for the court to bring about a change in venue. It has been put to me by the solicitor for the Minister that the Minister does not oppose the application being transferred to the Melbourne registry but does not actively seek a transfer.
Rule 8.01 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules covers the issue of a change of venue. Either party may apply to have the proceeding heard in another registry of the court. Subrule 8.01(2) provides:
In considering an application, the court must have regard to (a) the convenience of the parties and (b) the limiting of expense and the cost of the proceeding and (c) whether the matter has been listed for final hearing and (d) any other relevant matter.
I have considered these issues. Whilst it would appear that it is inconvenient for the applicant to travel to Sydney, he has made it quite clear that he wishes to do so. There is nothing before the court to indicate that there would be any increase in expense as far as the respondent Minister is concerned. Whilst it may be more expensive for the applicant, he appears willing to bear that expense. The matter has not been listed for final hearing.
It is relevant that the applicant is obtaining advice from a migration agent in Sydney. It is also a matter of relevance that this court has hearing dates available at relatively short notice and if it remains in Sydney it can be given a final hearing within the next couple of months.
For all of those reasons, I am satisfied that the venue of this matter will remain in Sydney and I advise that I could hear this matter at the end of August or early in September. But I will make no order as to change of venue.
I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: A. Coutman
Date: 30 July 2009
0
0
1