SZRCC v Minister for Immigration
[2012] FMCA 533
•13 June 2012
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZRCC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2012] FMCA 533 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – applicant claiming ethnic persecution in Indonesia – dismissal of judicial review application on account of the applicant’s non attendance. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | SZRCC |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 148 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
| Hearing date: | 13 June 2012 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 13 June 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms S Zowghi Clayton Utz |
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
The application filed on 2 February 2012 is dismissed, pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $2,800.
The Court directs that the Minister is to arrange to have these orders entered and the Minister is to cause a sealed copy of these orders to be served on the applicant by ordinary pre-paid post at his nominated address for service, together with a copy of rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 148 of 2012
| SZRCC |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
I have before me a show cause application filed on 23 January 2012 seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 19 December 2011. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It is noteworthy that, although the applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant failed to attend that hearing. The circumstances are detailed in the Tribunal’s decision at [24] and [25]:[1]
On 8 November 2011 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via registered post at the address last provided by the applicant in connection with the review, being the address provided in a change of address form to the Tribunal on 25 October 2011. In the letter the Tribunal advised the applicant that the Tribunal had considered all the material before it relating to the applicant’s application but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the Applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 7 December 2011. The Applicant was advised that if she did not attend the hearing and a postponement was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on her case without further notice. The applicant did not respond to the hearing invitation.
The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the time and place at which the hearing was scheduled to occur. In these circumstances and empowered under s.426A of the Act, the Tribunal has decided to make a decision on the review application without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.
[1] court book (CB), 74
The matter was listed before me on 22 February 2012 for first court date directions. The applicant attended in person with the assistance of an Indonesian interpreter. I gave directions for the progress of the matter towards a show cause hearing today. I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of the need to attend court today. Subsequently, the Minister’s solicitors filed and served on the applicant a court book.
There has been no other contact between the applicant and the Court in regard to the matter except in relation to the applicant’s participation under the Minister’s panel advice scheme. The applicant elected to participate in that scheme and the matter was allocated to Mr Michael Jones. He has provided to the Court a confirmation of an attempt to provide advice on 5 March 2012. The applicant failed to attend the meeting sought by Mr Jones and he was unable to contact the applicant.
The matter has been called twice today and there has been no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. There is no explanation for the applicant’s non-attendance.
In the circumstances, I agree with the submission of the solicitor for the Minister that the matter should be dismissed on account of the applicant’s non-attendance pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the Federal Magistrates Court Rules”). I so order.
The Minister seeks costs fixed in the amount of $2,800. That is below scale and I have no difficulty accepting that costs of not less than that amount have been reasonably and properly incurred when assessed on a party and party basis. I will order that the applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $2,800.
I will direct that the Minister is to arrange to have these orders entered and the Minister is to cause a sealed copy of these orders to be served on the applicant by ordinary pre-paid post at her nominated address for service, together with a copy of rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM
Associate:
Date: 21 June 2012
0
0
1