SZTCS v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

Case

[2014] FCCA 1785

29 July 2014


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTCS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 1785

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal.

PRACTICE & 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: SZTCS
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION
Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File Number: SYG 1702 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Emmett
Hearing date: 29 July 2014
Date of Last Submission: 29 July 2014
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 29 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter
Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms Sophie Given (Sparke Helmore)
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1702 of 2013

SZTCS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The first respondent seeks an order that the proceeding before this Court commenced by way of application, filed on 24 July 2013, be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) by reason of the failure of the applicant to appear at today’s scheduled hearing.

  2. In support, the first respondent’s solicitor, Ms Given, tendered a letter, dated 16 July 2014, from the first respondent’s solicitor addressed to the applicant at the applicant’s address for service in Australia. That letter was marked exhibit 1R.

  3. Exhibit 1R enclosed, by way of service upon the applicant, a copy of the first respondent’s submissions filed and served in accordance with directions made by Registrar Hannigan on 23 September 2013. Exhibit 1R provided for the applicant the location of the court room and the time of today’s hearing. Exhibit 1R also informed the applicant that if the applicant did not attend the respondent would seek orders from the court that the proceeding be dismissed with costs.

  4. On 23 September 2013, at the directions hearing before Registrar Hannigan, the applicant was given leave to file and serve an amended application, and directed to file and serve any further evidence in support by 4 November 2013. The applicant was also directed to file and serve written submissions 14 days prior to today’s hearing.

  5. The matter was set down for final hearing today at 10.15am before me. The time is now 10.30am and the matter has been called outside on at least two occasions, the most recent being less than five minutes ago. There is no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. There has been no document filed by or on behalf of the applicant, either in accordance with the directions made by Registrar Hannigan on 23 September 2013, or otherwise.

  6. I note that the Orders made by Registrar Hannigan on 23 September 2013 were signed by the applicant, acknowledging receipt of the Order. I note that, on that occasion, the applicant was provided with the contact details of legal services providers and translating and interpreting services, in documents headed in her own language. I further note that the applicant elected to participate in the Court’s then legal advice scheme. The applicant was also provided with a copy of the relevant cost schedule of this Court.

  7. There has been no communication received by the first respondent’s solicitor, or this Court, from the applicant, or any person on behalf of the applicant, seeking an adjournment of today’s hearing, or for any other reason.

  8. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant is aware of today’s proceeding and, for whatever reason, has chosen not to attend.

  9. Accordingly, the orders sought by the first respondent are appropriate.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett

Associate:

Date: 7 August 2014

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Immigration

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Natural Justice

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Jurisdiction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0