SZVEB v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.2)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZVEB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.2)

[2015] FCCA 1145

Catchwords:
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal for non-attendance.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.03C

Applicant:

SZVEB

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 2677 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Cameron

Hearing date:

29 January 2015

Date of Last Submission:

29 January 2015

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

29 January 2015

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Ms N. Senanayake of DLA Piper Australia

ORDERS

The application be dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $2,800.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2677 of 2014

SZVEB

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

It is now approximately 2:50pm and this matter was listed for call-over at 2:15pm this afternoon. The matter was called outside court a short time ago and there was no appearance by or for the applicant.
The matter was listed for today when the matter came before the Court for a first court date on 28 October 2014. The applicant appeared on that occasion.
As the applicant has failed to appear today, the first respondent (“Minister”) has sought dismissal of the matter pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001. In support of that application the Minister relies on a letter from his solicitors to the applicant at his address for service, dated 30 October 2014, reminding him of today’s call-over. Although it is described in the letter as a directions hearing, that is a matter of no significance. The letter goes on to say that, if the applicant did not attend, the Minister might seek to have the matter dismissed with costs for non-appearance.
I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of today and aware of the possibility that the Minister would apply to have the matter dismissed if he did not attend.
In all of the circumstances, I am persuaded to accede to the Minister’s request and to dismiss the matter pursuant to the rule I have mentioned.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Cameron

Associate:

Date: 5 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for judicial review brought by SZVEB against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by the Minister and ASIO concerning his security assessment. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse to revoke a security assessment, and ASIO's decision to maintain that assessment, were vitiated by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the Minister and ASIO had failed to take into account relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations when making their respective decisions. The applicant also contended that the decisions were affected by an error of law in that they were not made in accordance with the law, and that the Minister had failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision.

Judge Cameron found that the Minister's decision to refuse to revoke the security assessment was not affected by jurisdictional error. The Court held that the Minister had properly considered the relevant material, including the applicant's submissions and ASIO's advice, and had not taken into account irrelevant considerations. Similarly, ASIO's decision to maintain the security assessment was found to be lawful. The Court applied the principles of administrative law concerning the assessment of security risks, emphasising the broad discretion afforded to the Minister in such matters and the limited scope for judicial review of security assessments. The Court noted that the reasons provided by the Minister, while concise, were sufficient to inform the applicant of the basis of the decision.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established