SZVAN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Case [2016] FCA 1423


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZVAN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1423

Appeal from: Application for an extension of time: SZVAN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCCA 1218
File number: NSD 969 of 2016
Judge: FARRELL J
Date of judgment: 25 November 2016
Catchwords: MIGRATION  – application for extension of time to appeal judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – protection visa – where applicant failed to attend hearing of the application – application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(2B)(bb)(ii)
Cases cited: SZVAN v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016] FCCA 1218
Date of hearing: 25 November 2016
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr L Dennis of Minter Ellison
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent submitted save as to costs

ORDERS

NSD 969 of 2016
BETWEEN:

SZVAN

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

FARRELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 NOVEMBER 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for failure of the applicant to appear at the hearing.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan.

  2. By an application filed on 20 June 2016 the applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia delivered on 26 May 2016: see SZVAN v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016] FCCA 1218.

  3. When the time set down for the hearing of the application arrived at 10.15 am this morning, the applicant did not appear. The matter was called outside the courtroom with no appearance. Prior to the commencement of the hearing the Minister’s representative had attempted to contact the applicant on the telephone number listed on his application for an extension of time. That number was non-responsive. I adjourned the hearing until approximately 10.35 am to allow the applicant time to appear. When the applicant had still not appeared the Minister’s representative made an application pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for an order dismissing the application for an extension of time for failure of the applicant to attend the hearing.

  4. The Minister supplied a copy of a letter dated 21 November 2016 sent to both the street address and email address set out in the applicant’s application for an extension of time.  The letter notified the applicant of the time, date and place of the hearing and enclosed the Minister’s written outline of submissions and list of authorities.

  5. I am satisfied that the applicant had adequate notice of the time and date of the hearing.  In these circumstances I will dismiss the application and I will order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs as agreed or taxed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Farrell.

Associate:

Dated:        25 November 2016

Details
AGLC
SZVAN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1423
Case
[2016] FCA 1423
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZVAN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection involves the applicant, SZVAN, who filed an application for an extension of time to appeal a judgment from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia concerning a protection visa. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Bromberg. The applicant did not appear at the scheduled hearing, leading to the dismissal of their application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's failure to appear at the hearing justified the dismissal of their application for an extension of time to appeal, and whether the court should order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. The court needed to consider the relevant provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the Federal Court Rules 2011, particularly section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) and rule 39.32, respectively.

Justice Bromberg held that the applicant's absence at the hearing constituted a failure to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the legislation and rules. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the respondent as agreed or taxed, pursuant to the relevant rule of court. The dismissal and costs order were made in accordance with the statutory and rule provisions that require the court to manage its resources efficiently and ensure that parties adhere to procedural obligations.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed for the failure of the applicant to appear at the hearing and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs as agreed or taxed. These orders reflect the court's adherence to procedural requirements and its commitment to the efficient administration of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for failure of the applicant to appear at the hearing.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.