SZVDZ v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 861

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZVDZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 861

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: SZVDZ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2675 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 11 March 2016

Date of Last Submission: 11 March 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 11 March 2016

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In Person

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms C Saunders of DLA Piper

ORDERS

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

2. The application made on 26 September 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 $3,416.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2675 of 2014

SZVDZ

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 application made pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 26 September 2014 seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, now known as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), made on 26 August 2014, which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse a Protection (Class XA) visa to the applicant.

2. The matter has been before the Court for some time. I note from the Court’s records that the applicant appeared before a Registrar of the Court with the assistance of an interpreter in October 2014 where a number of orders were made for the conduct and progress of the matter before the Court. 

3. The matter was set down for callover on 8 April 2015 before the Registrar.  On that day, the applicant again appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter and the matter was set down for hearing today at 10.15 am. 

4. When the matter was called at that time, there was no appearance by or for the applicant. To my knowledge, there was no application for an adjournment, nor was there any communication to the Court’s Registry notifying of any difficulty in attending the Court today. I adjourned for a short period to allow the applicant further time to appear. When the matter was called again at 10.40am, there was still no appearance by or for the applicant, and I note now it is nearly 10.45am. 

5. The Minister has applied for the application to be dismissed for

   
   

   non-appearance by the applicant. I have before me the affidavit of Rachel Nadine Fresta, legal assistant, made on 10 March 2016, filed and read in Court today. I am satisfied based on that evidence and on the material in the Court’s file, that the applicant had reasonable notice of the Court event today.

6. The applicant’s absence remains unexplained and in the absence of any communication from the applicant, or on behalf of the applicant, it is appropriate to proceed to dismiss the application pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

7. In light of that, it is also appropriate today to consider the matter of costs.  It is appropriate that a cost order be made in the usual way.  As to the amount, I am satisfied the amount sought is reasonable in all the circumstances. I will make the orders accordingly.

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

Date: 18 April 2016