SZTOJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor

[2014] FCCA 2207

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTOJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 2207

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of a delegate of the First Respondent – no appearance by Applicant – application dismissed. 

Applicant: SZTOJ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2915 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Barnes

Hearing date: 12 September 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 September 2014

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Reilly

ORDERS

1. There being no appearance by the Applicant, the application of 25 November 2013 is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules.

2. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $5,000.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 2915 of 2013

SZTOJ

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 affirming a decision of a delegate of the First Respondent not to grant the Applicant a protection visa.  The Applicant sought review by application filed in this Court on 25 November 2013.  He attended a directions hearing on 5 March 2014.  On that day orders were made by consent, including an order listing the matter for final hearing today at 10.15 am.  The place, as well as the date and time of the hearing was specified in the orders.

2. The Applicant was not present today at the time the matter was listed for hearing.  Nor is he present now some 20 minutes later. 

3. In these circumstances, the First Respondent seeks that the matter be dismissed for non-appearance.  In addition to the notification at the directions hearing, the Minister’s solicitor wrote to the Applicant by letter of 2 September 2014, enclosing, by way of service, written submissions.  The letter also reminded the Applicant of the date, time and place of the hearing and of the fact that if he failed to appear orders may be sought that his application be dismissed with costs. Although I am told from the bar table that this letter was sent to the Applicant at an addressed notified to them by the Applicant.  On 2 September 2014 the Applicant filed a notice of address for service referring to the address used in this letter except that the notice describes the street address as including the word “North”. 

4. The Applicant attended the directions hearing.  He was notified at that hearing of the need to attend the hearing and of the possibility that if he were unsuccessful in these proceedings costs would be awarded against him.  I am satisfied that he is on notice of the date, time and place of the listing and of the possible consequences of non-appearance.  There is no explanation for his non-appearance.  I consider it appropriate to make the orders sought by the First Respondent and to dismiss the matter for non-appearance.

5. The First Respondent seeks costs in the sum of $5,000.  I am satisfied that is an appropriate amount in light of the nature of this and other similar matters.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Barnes

Associate: 

Date:  23 September 2014