FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Utu v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 322
Appeal from: Utu v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 2245 File number(s): VID 958 of 2019 Judge(s): WHEELAHAN J Date of judgment: 18 February 2020 Date of publication of reasons: 11 March 2020 Catchwords: MIGRATION – appeal from decision of Federal Circuit Court dismissing application for review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – non-appearance by the appellant at the hearing of the appeal – appeal dismissed under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 116(1)(e)(i)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.75(1)(a)(i)
Date of hearing: 18 February 2020 Date of last submissions: 11 February 2020 Registry: Victoria Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Solicitor for the appellant: The appellant did not appear Solicitor for the first respondent: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
VID 958 of 2019 BETWEEN: MCCANN LIVINGSTON UTU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
WHEELAHAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 FEBRUARY 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.
2.The appeal be dismissed.
3.The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $2,500.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WHEELAHAN J:
On 1 October 2018, a delegate of the Minister cancelled the appellant’s class TY subclass 444 visa, pursuant to s 116(1)(e)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on the ground that the delegate was satisfied that the presence of the appellant in Australia is, or may be, or would or might be, a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community. The foundation for the decision was that the appellant had been convicted of a number of criminal offences, and that there were further charges pending. The appellant sought merits review of the delegate’s decision, and on 20 November 2018, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision. The appellant then sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision, and on 16 August 2019, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the application for judicial review.
The appellant now appeals the decision of the Federal Circuit Court to this Court. He has filed a notice of appeal containing four grounds of appeal, together with sub-grounds and particulars. However, the appellant has not filed a written outline of submissions as he was ordered to do by the Court on 25 September 2019. When the appeal was called on for hearing today, there was no appearance for the appellant. The Minister applied for an order that the appeal be dismissed pursuant to rule 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), on the ground that the appellant was absent when the appeal was called on for hearing. Having regard to the absence of the appellant and his failure to file submissions in support of the appeal, I am persuaded to make the order sought.
Therefore, the orders of the Court will be as follows:
(1)The name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.
(2)The appeal be dismissed.
(3)The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $2,500.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wheelahan. Associate:
Dated: 11 March 2020
- AGLC
- Utu v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 322
- Case
- [2020] FCA 322
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Circuit Court was justified in dismissing the appeal based on Utu's non-appearance at the hearing. The court had to consider the provisions of rule 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which allows for the dismissal of an appeal if the appellant fails to appear before the court. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the dismissal of the appeal was an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion under the rules.
The court determined that the Federal Circuit Court's decision to dismiss the appeal was both justified and reasonable. The court emphasised that rule 36.75(1)(a)(i) empowers the court to dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to appear before it. The court found that Utu's non-appearance was a significant factor in the decision to dismiss the appeal. Furthermore, the court concluded that the dismissal of the appeal was a proper exercise of the court's discretion under the rules, as it was in the interests of justice to do so. The court also noted that Utu had not provided any justification for his non-appearance, which further supported the decision to dismiss the appeal.
In light of the above, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $2,500. The court also amended the name of the first respondent to reflect the current title of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.
2. The appeal be dismissed.
3. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $2,500.
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.