Vaghari Aka Vaghela v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 1344

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VAGHARI AKA VAGHELA & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 1344

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for adjournment of review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal. 

First Applicant: MAHENDRAKUMAR PRAHLADBHAI VAGHARI AKA VAGHELA

Second Applicant: PRAGNA RAJESHKUMAR CHUNARA

Third Applicant: VIYAN MAHENDRAKUMAR VAGHELA

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 452 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Barnes

Hearing date: 20 August 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 20 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

Applicants: In person

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application for a further adjournment is refused.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 452 of 2013

MAHENDRAKUMAR PRAHLADBHAI VAGHARI AKA VAGHELA

First Applicants

PRAGNA RAJESHKUMAR CHUNARA

Second Applicant

VIYAN MAHENDRAKUMAR VAGHELA

Third Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. The First Applicant (referred to for convenience as the Applicant) seeks an adjournment in order to obtain what he describes as “expert advice” in relation to his application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal.  He told me from the bar table that he wanted to go to an expert, but that he had not previously sought such advice because they charged high fees and he did not have the money.  He suggested generally that he had talked to his family and wanted an expert opinion.  The application for an adjournment was opposed by the First Respondent on the basis of a lack of merit in the substantive application. 

2. The Applicant has previously sought and been granted adjournments.  I have considered whether a further adjournment would be in the interests of the parties and the administration of justice. The application was filed on 8 March 2013.  The matter was initially listed for hearing on 30 July 2013.  The Applicant contacted the Court on 29 July 2013 and advised that he had hurt his back when returning from India.  I note that this suggests that whatever his financial position was, he had been able to travel to India.  He provided a medical certificate in relation to back pain for the period from 29 July 2013 to 31 July 2013 and sought a rescheduling of the hearing.  The hearing was postponed until 6 August 2013. 

3. The Applicant then sought a further adjournment on the basis that his son was to have an operation on 6 August 2013.  He requested that the hearing be adjourned until after 15 August 2013. A further adjournment was granted and the matter was listed for hearing today, 20 August 2013.  The Applicant was clearly aware of the possibility of contacting the Court in advance if he sought an adjournment of the hearing.  He did not do so on this occasion. 

4. The Applicant has had a considerable amount of time in which to obtain legal advice and to prepare for these proceedings.  His general claim that he lacked the financial ability to seek legal assistance (notwithstanding that he was able to travel overseas) is not supported by any corroborative evidence.  Nor has he provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to take steps to obtain the necessary funds (whether from his family or otherwise) to obtain legal assistance.  He has been aware since he started these proceedings, and certainly since the first directions hearing on 17 April 2013, of the need to obtain legal advice prior to the hearing. 

5. In addition, I have had regard to the submissions of the First Respondent in relation to the substantive merits of the application for review.  There is nothing in the circumstances of this case to provide support for a contention that legal representation would be of such assistance to the Applicant that it would be appropriate for the matter to be further adjourned in order for him to obtain, at some unspecified time, funds and legal assistance in relation to his application for review.  The matter has been before the Court for a considerable time.  I have borne in mind the difficulties of rescheduling the matter to an unspecified date in the future in the absence of any certainty as to whether the Applicant would seek such advice and if so when any advice might be forthcoming. 

6. On the material before the Court I am not satisfied that it would be in the interests of the administration of justice and of the parties for there to be a further adjournment of this matter. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Barnes

Associate: 

Date:  13 September 2013