SZRQN v Minister for Immigration
[2013] FMCA 176
•1 March 2013
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZRQN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2013] FMCA 176 |
| MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant at scheduled hearing – application dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.1303C |
| Applicant: | SZRQN |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 906 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Emmett FM |
| Hearing date: | 1 March 2013 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 1 March 2013 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 1 March 2013 |
REPRESENTATION
| No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms R Francois |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 17 July 2012, is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) by reason of the failure of the applicant to attend today’s hearing.
The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $6,471.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 906 of 2012
| SZRQN |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The first respondent seeks an order that the proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 17 July 2012, be dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) by reason of the applicant’s failure to attend today’s scheduled hearing.
In support of the application, the first respondent’s counsel, Ms Francois, tendered a letter from the first respondent’s solicitor to the applicant at the applicant’s post office box and dated 22 February 2013. That letter was marked Exhibit 1R. The address for service in Australia provided by the applicant is an address in Station Road, Auburn. The applicant also provided a postal address, being the address to which Exhibit 1R was sent.
Exhibit 1R purported to enclose, by way of service, the first respondent’s submissions. The letter also gave the applicant the details of today’s scheduled hearing and informed the applicant that if the applicant failed to appear, orders may be sought that his matter be dismissed with costs.
There is no explanation from the first respondent as to why the letter enclosing the submissions was not also sent to the applicant at his identified address for service in Australia. As Exhibit 1R was not also sent to the applicant at the applicant’s residential address, I cannot be certain that the applicant has in fact received a copy of the first respondent’s submissions and the other information provided in that letter, including that, if the applicant filed to appear, the appeal would be dismissed with costs.
However, the applicant, with the assistance of an interpreter, attended a directions hearing before me on 23 August 2012. On that occasion, the applicant was given leave to file and serve an amended application and directed to file and serve any additional evidence by 25 October 2012 as well as submissions in support of the application 14 days before the hearing. Order 14 also stated that:
“In the event that there is no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant at the time of any scheduled court event, the application may be dismissed without further notice.”
That order was read by me to the applicant at the directions hearing.
At the directions hearing, the applicant elected to participate in the Court’s RRT Legal Advice Scheme and received advice in accordance with that scheme on 6 September 2012. At the directions hearing, I also provided the applicant with the contact details of legal service providers and translating and interpreting services in documents headed in the applicant’s own language.
At that directions hearing, the matter was set down for hearing today at 10.15am. There has been no document filed by or on behalf of the applicant, either in accordance with those directions or otherwise.
It is now 11.05am and the applicant has been called on at least three occasions outside the Courtroom.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant is aware of today’s hearing and, for whatever reason, has chosen not to attend. Accordingly, the orders sought by the first respondent are appropriate and should be made.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM
Deputy Associate:
Date: 8 March 2013
0
0
1