SZRTS v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 657

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZRTS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 657

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – No appearance.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001

Applicant: SZRTS

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1932 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Raphael

Hearing date: 19 June 2013

Date of Last Submission: 19 June 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 19 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the First Respondent: DLA Piper

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

2. Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $3,000.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 1932 of 2012

SZRTS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the applicant sought review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 9 August 2012 by way of an application dated 7 September 2012.  On 8 November 2012 he appeared before me when directions were given and the matter was set down for hearing at 10.15a.m. today.  According to an affidavit of Amelia Ramos filed herein, the applicant was sent by courier a letter reminding him of the hearing date and providing the applicant with the respondent’s submissions on 11 June 2013.

2. The applicant was not present in court at 10.15a.m. and was still not present when his name was called outside the court at 10.25a.m. In those circumstances I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of the hearing and has for his own reasons determined not to attend. I propose to dismiss the application pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.  I order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $3,000.00.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Raphael

Date:  28 June 2013