SZRSY v Minister for Immigration
[2013] FMCA 142
•21 February 2013
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZRSY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2013] FMCA 142 |
| MIGRATION – Application for an extension of time in which to bring an application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by applicant at ‘show cause’ hearing – application for extension of time dismissed. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.476, 477 Federal Magistrates Court Rules (Cth), r.13.03C |
| Applicant: | SZRSY |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1854 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 21 February 2013 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 21 February 2013 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 21 February 2013 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | No appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr HPT Bevan |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Minter Ellison |
ORDERS
The application for an extension of time made on 27 August 2012 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 $6,471.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1854 of 2012
| SZRSY |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)
On 27 August 2012, the applicant purported to make an application, pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), seeking review of the decision of the of the Refugee Review Tribunal, made on 29 June 2012, which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.
I also have an application that the time for the making of this application be extended pursuant to s.477(1) of the Act. [The Tribunal’s decision was made on 29 June 2012. The application to the Court was made on 27 August 2012, some weeks after the 35 days period set out in s.477(1) of the Act.]
It is this application which was set down for hearing today.
When the matter was called the applicant did not appear. It is appropriate now that I move to consider the Minister’s application, made today, that the matter be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). The evidence before me is respondent’s “Exhibit 1” (“RE1”) and respondent’s “Exhibit 2” (“RE2”):
a)RE1 is Notice of Withdrawal as Lawyer, completed by the applicant’s former solicitor, dated 13 February 2013.
b)RE2 is a letter sent to the applicant at his address for service, dated 14 February 2013. Enclosed with that letter was the first respondent’s outline of submissions and list of authorities. Further, a copy of RE1 was enclosed. That letter noted today’s Court event and advised that, in the event that the applicant did not attend Court, the first respondent “…may apply to have the matter dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c)...”
I take into account submissions made by Mr Bevan, who appears for the Minister today, who came ready to argue the Minister’s position. I adopt the submissions made by Mr Bevan. I cannot disagree with anything that he has said relevant to this matter. I am satisfied of, essentially, two things:
a)That, when regard is had to the evidence, the applicant had notice, and reasonable notice in the circumstances, of the Court event today.
b)That when the matter was called today at the scheduled time the applicant did not appear, nor did anyone else appear on the applicant’s behalf.
It is now well past the time scheduled for the commencement of the hearing. In the absence of any communication from the applicant expressing any difficulties in attending today or seeking any adjournment, it is appropriate that I now proceed. I agree with the Minister’s request.
The Minister seeks a costs order. I take into account the following. The Minister, as is his right, has briefed counsel. There are various Court appearances prior to today by the Minister’s solicitors. Multiple copies of the Court Book. There has been communication with the applicant (RE2), filing and serving the written submissions and the like. It is appropriate that an order for costs be made today. There is nothing before me to argue against the making of the order in the usual way. As to the amount, it is the “guideline” amount set out in the relevant schedule to the rules of this Court. However, I am otherwise satisfied, having regard to the work done by the Minister’s legal representatives, that the amount sought is a reasonable amount. I will make that order in the amount sought.
I certify that the preceding seven(7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Associate:
Date: 4 March 2013
0
0
2