SZUTF v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 3288

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZUTF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 3288

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – no appearance by the applicant – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03C

Applicant: SZUTF

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1988 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 3 December 2015

Date of Last Submission: 3 December 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 3 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: No Apperance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mr R White of Mills Oakely Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The name of the second respondent is amended to read “Administrative Appeals Tribunal”.

2. The application made on 16 July 2014 is dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $5400.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1988 of 2014

SZUTF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me today an application made on 16 July 2014, pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, now known as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, made on 13 June 2014 which affirmed a decision by the Minister’s delegate to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.

2. I note from what appears on the Court file that the applicant attended a first Court date before another Judge of this Court on 28 August 2014.  The Court record shows that he appeared in person and was assisted by an interpreter in the Mandarin language. A number of orders were made on that date for the conduct of the case. The matter was listed for hearing on 21 July 2015. However, that hearing did not go ahead and the matter was transferred to my docket.

3. At the first Court date the applicant provided his current home and current postal address, being an address in Auburn, New South Wales.

4. When the matter was called today there was no appearance by, or for the applicant. There has been no communication, to my knowledge, to the Court’s Registry indicating any difficulty in attending today by the applicant, or that any adjournment was sought. In those circumstances, the Minister sought dismissal of the application pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

5. I am satisfied on what is before me that the applicant did have adequate and reasonable notice of the hearing of his matter today. I have before me the respondent’s exhibit one (“RE1”), which is a letter from the Minister’s solicitors to the applicant, sent to the applicant’s address for service, as given by the applicant himself, notifying the applicant of the Court event today, the time and the place. 

6. I also note on the Court’s file a letter from the Court to the applicant, again sent to the same address for service providing details of the relisting of the final hearing today at 10.15 am in this Court. I am satisfied that the applicant has had reasonable notice of the Court event today.  His absence remains unexplained. 

Conclusion

1. It is appropriate in the circumstances that the application be dismissed for want of appearance. I will make that order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Date: 3 March 2016