SZRUV v Minister for Immigration
[2012] FMCA 1253
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZRUV & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2012] FMCA 1253 |
| MIGRATION – No appearance by the applicants – application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c). |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03C |
| First Applicant: | SZRUV |
| Second Applicant: | SZRUW |
| Third Applicant: | SZRUX |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2084 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Nicholls FM |
| Hearing date: | 19 December 2012 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 19 December 2012 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 December 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicants: | No appearance |
| Appearing for the Respondents: | Ms F Taah |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application made on 25 September 2012 is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules2001 (Cth).
The first and second-named applicants pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $2500.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2084 of 2012
| SZRUV |
First Applicant
| SZRUW |
Second Applicant
| SZRUX |
Third Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)
This matter has been called today and there is no appearance by, or for, the applicants. The applicants made an application on 25 September 2012 to this Court, pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), made on 29 August 2012, to refuse the grant of protection visas to them.
At the first court date, on 10 October 2012, the first named applicant appeared in person. He was assisted by an interpreter in the Mandarin language. I made a number of orders on that date for the progression of this matter, and also set it down for further directions today. That is, Wednesday, 19 December 2012, at 11.15 am, here in this Court.
When the matter was called today there was no appearance by any of the applicants. I note that the first and second-named applicants are adults. The third-named applicant is a child, and the first and second-named applicants were appointed as litigation guardians of the child at the first court date.
In these circumstances, the Minister has asked that the application be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
The first-named applicant was given the opportunity of attending with a lawyer, who was on the panel of the Court’s “RRT Legal Advice Scheme” and, who was assigned to provide advice to him and his family. I see from a Certificate on the Court’s file that written advice was provided on 9 November 2012.
I am satisfied that the applicants, that is, the first and second-named applicants had reasonable notice of the Court’s listing today. I note that nothing has been filed, pursuant to any orders giving the opportunity for the applicants to file further material in this matter.
Their absence today remains unexplained. There has been no request for an adjournment. There has been no communication with the Court, and no communication with the Minister’s solicitors.
It is appropriate, then, in all those circumstances, that the application be dismissed. I will make that order, pursuant to the appropriate rule.
Costs
It is appropriate that an order for costs be made in this matter. Nothing has been put before the Court, nor is there anything before the Court to argue against the making of an order for costs. The opportunity to have had the issue of costs explained would have been made available to the applicant through the panel lawyer.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM
Date: 30 January 2013
0
0
0