SZTVR v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

[2014] FCCA 1641

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTVR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 1641

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), rr.13.03C, 44.12

Applicant: SZTVR

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 259 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Emmett

Hearing date: 24 July 2014

Date of Last Submission: 24 July 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 24 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on  behalf of the applicant.

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms Michelle Stone (DLA Piper)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 259 of 2014

SZTVR

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 5 February 2014, is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the Rules”) by reason of the failure of the applicant to attend today’s scheduled hearing.

2. The applicant attended a directions hearing before me on 8 July 2014. On that occasion I explained to the applicant that the grounds of her application made bare assertions, but did not disclose an error capable of review by this Court. I also explained to the applicant that under the Rules, if the Court was not satisfied that her application raised an arguable case, her application could be dismissed pursuant to r.44.12 of the Rules. I further explained to the applicant the cost consequences that may flow to her in the event that she proceeded with her application and was unsuccessful.

3. The applicant confirmed that she wished to continue with her application and for that reason was given leave to file an Amended Application, evidence and submissions in support by 16 July 2014.  The applicant was also provided with a copy of the rule pursuant to which the matter was set down for hearing today and was provided with the contact details of legal services providers and translating and interpreting services in documents headed in her own language.

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

5. In support of the application this morning, the first respondent’s solicitor, Ms Stone, read the affidavit of Amelia Ramos, affirmed 23 July 2014.  Ms Ramos’ affidavit annexed a letter written to the applicant by the first respondent on 21 July 2014, enclosing a copy of the applicant’s written submissions and providing to the applicant the details of the time, date and location of today’s hearing.

6. The letter also informed the applicant that if the applicant did not attend today’s scheduled hearing, that the matter may be dismissed for non-appearance.  I note that in the directions made by me on 8 July 2014, Order 11 informed the applicant that in the event there is no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant at the time of any scheduled Court event, the application may be dismissed without further notice.  Those orders were interpreted for the applicant and the applicant signed those orders acknowledging receipt of them.

7. There has been no communication received from or on behalf of the applicant, either by the first respondent’s solicitors or this Court, either 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 scheduled hearing and for whatever reason has chosen not to attend.

9. Accordingly, the orders sought by the first respondent are appropriate and the proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 5 February 2014, should be dismissed with costs.

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

Associate: 

Date:  31 July 2014