SZQGG v Minister for Immigration
[2011] FMCA 427
•6 June 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZQGG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2011] FMCA 427 |
| MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – failure to appear by Applicant at scheduled hearing – dismissal pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rule 13.03C(1)(c) |
| Applicant: | SZQGG |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1023 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Emmett FM |
| Hearing date: | 6 June 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 6 June 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 6 June 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant |
| Counsel for the Respondents: |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Mr Johnson (Spark Helmore) |
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1023 of 2011
| SZQGG |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The first respondent seeks an order from the court this morning pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) that the proceeding before this Court commenced by way of application filed on 19 May 2011 be dismissed by reason of the failure of the applicant to appear at this morning scheduled first court date.
In support of the application the first respondent’s solicitor, Mr Johnson, tendered two letters both from the first respondent’s solicitor addressed to the applicant at the applicant’s address for service.
The letter dated 24 May 2011 was marked “Exhibit 1R” and encloses by way of service a copy of the first respondent’s Notice of Appearance. The letter concludes by advising the applicant that if the applicant does not attend the scheduled directions hearing that the first respondent would seek orders from the court to have the application dismissed with costs. I note that that letter also provided the contact details of legal services providers to the applicant for his further assistance.
The second letter dated 30 May 2011 and marked “Exhibit 2R”, enclosed by way of service upon the applicant a copy of the Response filed by the first respondent. The letter informed the applicant that the matter was listed for directions before me today at 10:00 am and provides the address of the Court. The letter informs the applicant that he is required to attend Court on that date and that if he did not attend the first respondent may seek to have his matter dismissed with costs.
I note that the application filed on 19 May 2011 by the applicant purports to be signed by the applicant. At the same time the application was filed, the applicant also filed an affidavit, sworn 19 May 2011 and filed on that date. The application clearly has on the front page the address of the Court and today’s date and time.
Further, I note that the grounds of the application are as follows.
“1. I can not possible (sic) go back to my country Colombia.
2. My life is in danger.
3. I can not live in any city of Colombia. A letter was published on Facebook by my ex-wife.
4. Asylum Seeker”
Plainly those grounds do not disclose any error capable of review by this Court and make bare assertions that would appear to be irrelevant in establishing a jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
It is now 10.22am, the matter has been called outside and there has been no appearance by the applicant. I also note that the first respondent has informed the Court that there has been no approach or no contact made by the applicant to the first respondent’s solicitors to seek any adjournment of today’s directions hearing or for any other reason. There is also no contact of which I am aware that has been made by the applicant to the Registry of this Court or to my Chambers.
In the circumstances I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of this morning’s hearing and for whatever reason has chosen not to attend. In those circumstances the application of the first respondent is appropriate.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM
Date: 8 June 2011
0
0
2