SZSQO v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 401

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZSQO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 401

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by the applicant at the first Court date – application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c).

Legislation:  
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.476, 477

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

Applicant: SZSQO

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 457 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 24 April 2013

Date of Last Submission: 24 April 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 24 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Appearing for the Respondents: Ms B Rayment

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The application made on 8 March 2013 is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant pay the first respondents' costs set in the amount of $1331.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 457 of 2013

SZSQO

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 8 March 2013, seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), which affirmed an earlier decision made by the delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.

2. The Minister today seeks that that application be dismissed for want of appearance by the applicant, and that the Court proceed to make orders pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the Rules”).

3. I should just note for the record that even though the applicant has sought an “Extension of Time”, as Ms Rayment who appeared for the Minister submitted, and I agree, the applicant was not required to make any such application pursuant to s.477(2) of the Act. It is appropriate then that I direct my attention to the substantive application.

4. The evidence that I have before me is Respondent’s Exhibit 1 (“RE1”). That is a letter to the applicant from the respondent Minister’s solicitors sent to the address for service. I note that the letter (RE1) put the applicant on notice that if he did not appear at the scheduled time for the first Court date in this matter that the Minister would pursue the course that he indeed is pursuing today.

5. I also note from the face of the application made by the applicant to the Court that the Court’s registry has set the matter down for first Court date today, Wednesday 24 April 2013 at 9.15 am. The applicant would have had a copy of the application as returned to him.

6. It is now nearly 9.30am. When the matter was first called there was no appearance by the applicant. There is still no appearance by the applicant. 

7. I am satisfied the applicant had reasonable notice of both the Court event today, and the consequences of any failure to attend. In the absence of any explanation for that inability, or failure, to attend, it is appropriate that I proceed to grant the Minister’s application and I do so. I will make the order. 

8. As to the costs that the Minister seeks, I note that the amount sought is the amount in what I regard as guidelines set out in the relevant Schedule to the Rules of this Court. However I am otherwise satisfied, given the work that has been done by the Minister’s solicitors including the preparation and filing and serving of the Court Book, that the amount sought is a reasonable amount.

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

Date:  28 May 2013