SZUYS v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 3192

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZUYS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 3192

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review 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: SZUYS

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2378 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 12 November 2014

Date of Last Submission: 12 November 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 November 2014

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mr L Dennis of Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The application made on 25 August 2014 is dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $3,326.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2378 of 2014

SZUYS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore; Revised From Transcript)

1. I have before me today an application filed on 25 August 2014 pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 31 July 2014 which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

2. The matter was set down for a first Court date on 1 October 2014.  On that occasion a solicitor appeared for the applicant and orders were made for the progress of the matter before the Court.  Relevantly, the matter was set down for mention today at a callover at 9.30 am (see Order 10 of Orders of 1 October 2014).  I note that despite indicating that he would file a notice to act for the applicant in this matter the solicitor appearing for the applicant has not done so. 

3. When the matter was called, there was no appearance by the applicant, nor, indeed, on behalf of the applicant. The Minister sought dismissal of the application for non-appearance pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

4. I have regard to the respondent’s exhibit one (“RE1”), tendered before the Court today, which is a letter to the applicant from the Minister, sent to the address for service, reminding him of the Court event today. 

5. I am satisfied that the applicant personally has had reasonable notice of the Court event today.  His absence remains unexplained.  There is nothing before the Court to indicate any request for an adjournment. Nor, it must be said, has anything been filed by, or on behalf of, the applicant to indicate that the applicant has taken any steps to prosecute his case, despite the opportunity to do so granted in the orders of 1 October 2014.

6. I am satisfied in all the circumstances that the order that the Minister seeks should be made.  I will make the order. It is also appropriate that an order for costs be made in this matter. I am satisfied that the amount sought in a reasonable amount taking into account the work done by the Minister. I will make an order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Associate: 

Date:  10 November 2015