SZOKL v Minister for Immigration
[2010] FMCA 406
•9 June 2010
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZOKL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2010] FMCA 406 |
| MIGRATION – Review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by applicant – application dismissed. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.03, 16.05 |
| Applicant: | SZOKL |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1061 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 9 June 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 9 June 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 9 June 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Appearing for the Respondents: | Mr J Pinder |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | DLA Phillips Fox |
ORDERS
The application made on 13 May 2010 is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $1,175.
Within seven days of the making of these orders the first respondent’s solicitors write to the applicant by letter sent to the address for service and advise the applicant of the orders made today, and of the existence of rule 16.05 of this Court’s Rules.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1061 of 2010
| SZOKL |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore; revised from transcript)
I note it is 15 minutes past the appointed time. I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the time, date and place at which this matter was set down for a directions hearing today. The applicant had notice in two ways. First, he was given the time, date and place by the Court’s Registry at the time of filing of his application. Second, because of Respondent’s Exhibit 1 (“RE1”), which I note was sent to the address for service as provided by the applicant in his application to the Court.
Nothing has been heard from the applicant. I am satisfied that the matter should be dismissed. I note that r.13.03C(1) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) specifically makes reference to default of a party being absent from a hearing, including at a First Court Date.
I am satisfied the applicant had notice of proceedings today. His failure to attend remains unexplained. In circumstances where he had reasonable notice and his absence is unexplained, it is appropriate that I proceed to dismiss the application. I have in mind r.13.03C(1)(c) as being appropriate and I will make that order.
It may be appropriate, also, given that this was a first court date, that I also make an order that the Minister’s solicitors write to the applicant informing him of the orders made today and also advising him of the existence of r.16.05.
Costs
It is appropriate that an order for costs be made. The applicant made his application but for whatever reason chose not to attend today. The Minister has been put to some expense. I note that in this matter a Response has been filed and served. Correspondence has been sent to the applicant at the address for service. A solicitor is in attendance here today. Generally the amount sought is consistent with the guide set out in the Rules of this Court (part 2 of sch.1)
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Associate:
Date: 30 June 2010
0
0
1