Vodovodo v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 296

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vodovodo v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 296

RATU NAISA VODOVODO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
NSD 2236 OF 2007

JESSUP J
3 MARCH 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2236 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	RATU NAISA VODOVODO Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 MARCH 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $850.

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	NSD 2236 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	RATU NAISA VODOVODO Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE:	3 MARCH 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 14 November 2007 the applicant filed an application in this court for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal from a consent judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia given on 12 April 2005.  The application was supported by an affidavit, but that affidavit dealt neither with an explanation as to why a Notice of Appeal was not filed in time, nor with the question of the errors said to have been made by the Federal Magistrate to which the applicant proposed to draw the court’s attention.  The draft grounds of appeal annexed to the affidavit were silent on the question of any error that may have been made by the Federal Magistrate.  They were concerned entirely with the original decision of the Migration Review Tribunal with respect to which the proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court was instituted.  That circumstance is barely surprising since the judgment of the Federal Magistrate was by consent and there is no record of any reasons given by that court at the time when that judgment was entered.

2. The applicant did not file a memorandum of the submissions which he proposed to make in the proceeding today, and when his application was called on he did not appear.  In the circumstances I would express two conclusions.  First, nothing on the papers provides any indication of a legitimate ground upon which the applicant would be able to challenge the judgment sought to be appealed from.  Secondly, nothing appears which would provide any kind of explanation for the applicant’s quite extraordinary delay occasioned between the date of the judgment in April 2005 and the date of the present application in November 2007.

3. The present application is to be determined by reference to O 52 r 15(2) of the Rules of Court, and specifically by reference to the question whether there are any special reasons which would justify the grant of leave to file and serve a Notice of Appeal out of time.  It will be obvious from what I have said that there are no such reasons in this case.  I dismiss the application.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup.

Associate:

Dated:       7 March 2008

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms S Kantaria
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	3 March 2008
Date of Judgment:	3 March 2008