SZTNW v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 588

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTNW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 588

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application to review decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by Applicant – application dismissed.

Applicant: SZTNW

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2890 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Barnes

Hearing date: 19 March 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 19 March 2014

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. There being no appearance by the Applicant the application of 21 November 2013 is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $1,331.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 2890 of 2013

SZTNW

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The application was filed on 21 November 2013.  The file copy of the application records the first court day of 5 March 2014 at 9.30 am.  The form states that parties should attend and default orders may be made if a party fails to attend.  There was no appearance by the Applicant on 5 March 2014.  On that date, I ordered the matter be adjourned until 9.30 am today, 19 March 2014 and that the solicitor for the Minister notify the Applicant of the orders that were made. 

2. The orders noted that if the Applicant failed to appear today, the application may be dismissed for non-appearance.  The Applicant failed to appear today at the time the matter was listed and nor is he present now, nearly an hour and a half later.  I am told from the bar table by the solicitor for the Minister that he contacted the Applicant by telephone with the assistance of an interpreter and that the Applicant indicated that he had not received a letter notifying him of the directions hearing today.  He also claimed that he was unable to attend as it would take a couple of hours.  He said that he did not attend on 5 March 2014 because he did not receive a notice.  When told that the original application contained the date he indicated that he did not know. 

3. I bear in mind that I am told these things from the bar table.  There is, in any event, evidence before the Court that on 5 March 2014 the Minister wrote to the Applicant at the address for service provided in his application, advising him that the matter was not dismissed on 5 March 2014 and that an adjournment had been granted which gave him another opportunity to appear.  The letter advised that the matter was listed on 19 March 2014 at 9.30 am and that if the Applicant did not appear the First Respondent would seek orders that his matter be dismissed and that he pay the Minister’s legal costs.  In addition, the Court wrote to the Applicant at the address for service provided in the application on 6 March 2014 enclosing the orders made, advising that the matter was listed for further directions at 9.30 am on 19 March 2014 repeating the address for the directions hearing and inviting him to contact the registry if he had any queries. 

4. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant has been properly notified of the adjournment at the address provided in his application for review. He failed to attend on the first court date. He has again failed to attend today. In these circumstances, I consider it appropriate to dismiss the application for non-appearance pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) with costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Barnes

Associate: 

Date:  25 March 2014