SZSIE v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 555

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZSIE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 555

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for an extension of time in which to bring an application seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by the applicant – application for an extension of time dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.477

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

Applicant: SZSIE

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2833 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 26 April 2013

Date of Last Submission: 26 April 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 26 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Appearing for the Respondents: Mr O Jones

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The application for an extension of time made on 4 December 2012 is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $3,000.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 2833 of 2012

SZSIE

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me today an application made on 4 December 2012 seeking an extension of time pursuant to s.477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) within which to bring an application seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), made on 29 October 2012, which affirmed the decision of the delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.

2. The matter first came before the Court on 6 February 2013. The applicant appeared in person at that time. She was assisted by an interpreter in the Mandarin language and orders were made on that day which, amongst other things, set down the application for an extension of time for hearing today, 26 April 2013, at 10.15am.

3. When the matter was called today there was no appearance by the applicant. I note that it is now nearly 10 minutes past the scheduled time and there is still no appearance by the applicant. No request for an adjournment has been made through the Registry of the Court, nor has any other communication been received from the applicant notifying the Court of any difficulty in attending today. 

4. I note that I also have before me Respondent’s Exhibit 1 (“RE1”) which is a letter from the Minister’s solicitors to the applicant, sent to the address for service, dated 19 April 2013. Amongst other things, that letter reminds the applicant that the matter is to be heard today, including the time, the date, and place. It also put the applicant on notice that any failure to attend may lead to the course that the Minister has now adopted.

5. I’m satisfied, therefore, that the applicant has had notice of the hearing of the matter today. The applicant’s absence is evident and remains unexplained. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to proceed to dismiss the application for an extension of time pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Court’s Rules.

6. The Minister also presses costs today. He seeks an order set in the amount of $3000.

7. It is appropriate that an order for costs be made. The applicant’s absence, including to speak to the Minister’s application for costs, has already been addressed. It is appropriate to proceed a consideration of that costs application. I do so.

8. It is appropriate that the order be made. The amount is, in my view and having regard to the work that has been done by the Minister’s solicitors, a reasonable amount. I will make the order in that amount.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Date:  18 June 2013