SZSBS v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship

[2013] FCCA 910

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZSBS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & CITIZENSHIP & ANOR [2013] FCCA 910

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal.
PRACTICE AND 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 Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

Legislation: 
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001(Cth), r.13.03C(1)(c).

Applicant: SZSBS

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2422 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Emmett

Hearing date: 19 July 2013

Date of Last Submission: 19 July 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 19 July 2013

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Timothy Reilly

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms Sophie Lloyd (Minter Ellison)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 2422 of 2012

SZSBS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The first respondent seeks an order pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) that the proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed 24 October 2012, be dismissed by reason of the failure of the applicant to appear at today’s scheduled hearing of the matter.

2. I note that the applicant attended a directions hearing before me on 18 December 2012, and on that occasion the matter was set down for hearing on 18 July 2013 at 10.15am, before me. 

3. I note that the location of the courtroom given in that order is incorrect, although the order stated that it is the responsibility of each party to ensure that they know the location of the courtroom where the matter is to be heard.  On 3 July 2012 a letter was sent to the applicant by my chambers advising the applicant as to the location of the courtroom where her matter would be heard on 18 July 2013. 

4. On 15 July 2013, my chambers sent a letter to the applicant and the first respondent notifying them that the matter had been rescheduled for hearing today at 10.15am and advising them of the location of the courtroom.

5. In support of the application this morning, the first respondent tendered a letter dated 16 July 2013 from the first respondent’s solicitor addressed to the applicant at the post-office box address provided by the applicant and the residential address filed by the applicant on the application filed on 24 October 2012. I note that the same addresses are provided on the amended application filed on 27 March 2013.  That letter is marked Exhibit 1R on the first respondent’s application this morning. 

6. Exhibit 1R advised the applicant that the hearing would be held today at 10.15am and provided the location of the courtroom where the hearing was to take place.  I note it is now 10.50am.  The matter has been called outside on several occasions.  I note that there is no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. There has been no communication received by the first respondent’s solicitors or by the court from the applicant either requesting an adjournment of today’s hearing or for any other reason.

7. I further note that Exhibit 1R advised the applicant that if the applicant did not appear today that the first respondent may apply to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance with costs.

8. In the circumstances and based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the applicant is aware or should be aware of today’s scheduled hearing and the location of the courtroom.

9. Further, I am not aware of any communication received by or on behalf of the applicant making any inquiry or suggesting that the applicant attended Court on 18 July 2013 and made any further inquiry about his matter.  I am also informed by counsel of the first respondent, Mr Reilly, that the first respondent did not receive any communication from the applicant, either in relation to the hearing that was originally scheduled for 18 July, being yesterday.

10. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the orders sought by the first respondent are appropriate, and that the proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 24 October 2012, should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett

Associate: 

Date:  23 July 2013