Tutughamiarso v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs FCA [2001] 692

[2001] FCA 692

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tutughamiarso v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

FCA [2001] 692

TRENGGANA BUDAJA TUTUGHAMIARSO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 119 of 2001

WILCOX J
30 MAY 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 119 of 2001

BETWEEN:	TRENGGANA BUDAJA TUTUGHAMIARSO APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 119 of 2001

BETWEEN:	TRENGGANA BUDAJA TUTUGHAMIARSO APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	30 MAY 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. The matter before the Court is an application for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant to the applicant, Trenggana Budaja Tutughamiarso, a protection visa.  The Tribunal refused the application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to attend an appointed oral hearing, despite the fact he had earlier indicated he intended to appear.  The Tribunal took the view that, on the written material, which is all it had available, it was not satisfied the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of the Convention on Refugees. 

2. The Tribunal's decision was made on 16 January 2001.  On 12 February 2001 the applicant filed in this Court an application for review of the Tribunal's decision.  He gave his address as 1104/Tower 2, 600 Railway Parade, Hurstville, 2220.  The same address was shown on an application for fee exemption or waiver that was lodged on the same day. 

3. The matter came before me at a directions hearing on 27 March 2001.  The applicant attended, appearing for himself with the assistance of an interpreter.  At that time, I explained to the applicant the procedure that would be followed and emphasised to him the limits on the Court's jurisdiction.  I also informed him the matter would proceed on the appointed day and that he must attend.  He informed me he understood this and had no questions.  The date that I appointed on that occasion was Tuesday, 15 May 2001 at 2.15 pm. 

4. At the directions hearing, the applicant indicated he wished to take advantage of the scheme to provide free legal advice to unrepresented applicants in refugee cases.  A lawyer (Ms Frances Backman) was allocated to his case.  I do not know what passed between the lawyer and the applicant. 

5. On 6 April 2001 the solicitors for the respondent forwarded a letter to the applicant at the address shown on his application enclosing what she called the respondent's relevant documents; that is, the usual green book.  At the same time a further copy was sent to Ms Backman.  It became necessary to change the hearing date, because of another matter in which I had been asked to sit.  On 8 May 2001 the solicitors for the respondent wrote a further letter to the applicant, at the same address, notifying him the matter would now be listed for hearing on 30 May 2001 at 2.15 pm at the Federal Court at Queens Square.

6. A further letter was sent on 28 May, again addressed to the same address.  This letter enclosed a copy of the respondent's submissions and confirmed the hearing time.  At some stage the letter of 6 April was returned unclaimed to the respondent's solicitors; the subsequent letters have not yet been returned. 

7. The file discloses no more recent address than that shown in the application and I have no reason to believe the applicant has departed from that address.  If he has departed from that address, there was an onus on him to notify his new address.  There was also an onus on him to keep himself apprised of the situation.

8. When the matter was called today, the applicant did not appear.  I was informed by counsel for the Minister that nothing had been heard from the applicant and there was no reason, known to the Minister or his representative, why the applicant could not be here today.  I can only conclude the applicant is not interested in pursuing the case.  The application that is made to me, on behalf of the Minister, is that the application be dismissed and with an order for costs.  I think it is appropriate to accede to that application.  The order I make is that the application be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             19 June 2001

The Applicant did not appear.
Counsel for the Respondent:	D Jordan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	30 May 2001