SZTUV v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

[2014] FCCA 1118

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTUV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 1118

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal.

PRACTICE AND 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) rr.13.03C, 44.12

Applicant: SZTUV

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 171 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Emmett

Hearing date: 29 May 2014

Date of Last Submission: 29 May 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 29 May 2014

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant.

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Ms Michelle Stone

(DLA Piper)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 171 of 2014

SZTUV

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 23 January 2014, be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules2001 (Cth) (“the Rules”), by reason of a failure of the applicant to appear at today’s scheduled hearing.

2. In support of the application, the solicitor for the first respondent, Ms Michelle Stone, tendered a letter dated 7 May 2014, to the applicant from the solicitor for the first respondent, addressed to the applicant’s address for service in Australia. That letter was marked ‘Exhibit 1R’.

3. Exhibit 1R informs the applicant of the date, time, and location of today’s scheduled hearing. 

4. On 5 May 2014, the applicant attended a directions hearing before me. I explained to the applicant that this Court has no power to interfere with the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”), unless the Court is satisfied that the RRT’s decision dated 24 December 2013, is affected by a mistake that goes to the jurisdiction of the RRT. I also explained to the applicant that the grounds of the application made bare assertions that were unsupported by particulars and did not by themselves disclose an error capable of review by this Court.

5. At the directions hearing, the applicant was provided with a copy of the applicable costs schedule of the Court and I explained to the applicant the consequences that would flow to him if a costs order was made against him. Namely, that whilst any costs order remains unpaid, it becomes a debt to the Commonwealth of Australia. As such, the applicant’s ability to obtain any other type of visa or re-enter Australia may be significantly affected.

6. The applicant confirmed that he wished to continue with the application for judicial review. The applicant was given leave to file and serve an amended application giving complete particulars of each ground of review relied upon, together with any further evidence by way of affidavit, as well as submissions in support.

7. The applicant was also provided with the contact details of legal services providers and interpreting and translation services in documents headed in his own language should he wish to take advice.

8. At the directions hearing, the applicant was provided with the contact details of legal services providers and interpreting and translation services in documents headed in his own language.

9. The matter was listed today for a hearing pursuant to r.44.12 of the Rules and a copy of that rule given to the applicant.

10. There has been no document filed by or on behalf of the applicant either in accordance with those directions or otherwise. 

11. It is now 10:35am, the matter having been listed at 10.00am for hearing pursuant to r.44.12 of the Rules on the basis that the application did not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed. The matter has been called outside on several occasions, the most recent less than ten minutes ago.

12. There has been no communication received, either by the first respondent or the Court, from the applicant seeking an adjournment of today’s hearing or for any other reason.

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

14. I am satisfied that the orders sought by the first respondent are appropriate.

15. Accordingly, the proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 23 January 2014, should be dismissed with costs pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Rules, by reason of the failure of the applicant to attend today’s scheduled hearing.

I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett

Associate:

Date:             6 June 2014