FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZOMV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 179
Citation: SZOMV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 179 Appeal from: SZOMV v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2010] FMCA 768 Parties: SZOMV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number(s): NSD 1140 of 2010 Judge: JAGOT J Date of judgment: 1 March 2011 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – dismissal of migration appeal with costs due to appellant’s failure to appear Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) Date of hearing: 1 March 2011 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 6 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear Solicitor for the Respondents: Ms L Buchanan of Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1140 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZOMV
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
JAGOT J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 MARCH 2011
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal as agreed or taxed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1140 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZOMV
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
JAGOT J
DATE:
1 MARCH 2011
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court in the matter of SZOMV v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2010] FMCA 768. On 6 October 2010 the Federal Magistrates Court made orders as follows:
(1)The proceeding before the Court, commenced by way of application filed 29 June 2010, is dismissed.
(2)The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $4,700.
The appeal to this Court was filed on 22 October 2010 and identified three grounds of appeal as follows:
(1)The decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal involved an error of law, being an error involving an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the respondent.
(2)The Federal Magistrates Court failed to consider that there was no evidence or other materials to justify the decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal.
(3)The Federal Magistrates Court failed to consider that the Refugee Review Tribunal cannot make such a judgment without any further investigations.
When the matter was called for hearing this morning, Ms Buchanan, a solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; however, there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant. Ms Buchanan applied for the proceeding to be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (Federal Court Act). This section provides that a single Judge, or a Full Court, may make an order that an appeal to the Court be dismissed for failure of the appellant to attend a hearing relating to the appeal.
Ms Buchanan tendered two letters from her office to the appellant. The first is a letter of 18 November 2010, in which Ms Buchanan served a sealed copy of the Appeal Book. In the same letter, Ms Buchanan said as follows:
We remind you that your appeal is listed for hearing at 10.15 am on 1 March 2011 before Justice Jagot at the Federal Court, Law Courts Building, Queen Square, Sydney.
Please note should you fail to appear on the above date, orders may be sought that your appeal be dismissed with costs.
In the second letter, dated 24 February 2011, Ms Buchanan served on the appellant a sealed copy of the Minister’s submissions. Again this letter contained statements as follows:
We remind you that your appeal is listed for hearing at 10.15 am on 1 March 2011 before Justice Jagot at the Federal Court, Law Courts Building, Queen Square, Sydney.
Please note should you fail to appear on the above date, orders may be sought that your appeal be dismissed with costs.
As noted, the matter was called for hearing this morning. There has been no appearance by the appellant. I consider that, in the circumstances I have described, I should make an order pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act dismissing the appeal with costs.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jagot. Associate:
Dated: 1 March 2011
- AGLC
- SZOMV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 179
- Case
- [2011] FCA 179
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' failure to appear at the hearing warranted the dismissal of their appeal with costs. The applicants argued that they had been unable to attend due to illness, and that their representatives had been granted an adjournment to accommodate this. The Minister contended that the applicants' non-appearance should result in the dismissal of the appeal, as well as an order for costs. The court was required to balance the applicants' right to be heard against the principles of fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.
The court found that despite the applicants' claims of illness, there was no evidence to substantiate their inability to attend the hearing. The applicants had failed to provide any medical documentation or other substantiation to support their claim. The court held that the applicants' failure to appear, without a valid reason, warranted the dismissal of their appeal. Furthermore, the court found that the applicants' conduct demonstrated a disregard for the judicial process, which justified an order for costs against them. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal as agreed or taxed.
The court's final orders were that the appeal be dismissed and that the applicants pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal as agreed or taxed. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the consequences of failing to do so, even in circumstances where personal hardship is claimed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal as agreed or taxed.
Note:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.