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
The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan.
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.
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- SZVAN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1423
- Case
- [2016] FCA 1423
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.