Ya Quin Shi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2001] FCA 722

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ya Quin Shi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 722

YA QUIN SHI V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N54 OF 2001

MOORE J
4 MAY 2001
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N54 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

YA QUIN SHI
FIRST APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MAY 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS AND DIRECTS THAT:

1.        The application is dismissed.

2.        The applicants pay the respondent's costs.

3.The respondent notify the applicant within 7 days in writing at the address for service of the order I have just made and in summary of the reasons for doing so.

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

N54 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

YA QUIN SHI
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

4 MAY 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOORE J

  1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The matter was listed for directions before the Court on 7 March 2001.  On that occasion the applicant appeared and directions were made for the hearing of the matter The matter was then listed for hearing at 10.15 this morning, 4 May 2001.

  2. At 10.15 appearances were taken and there was no appearance for the applicant.  I am informed by counsel for the respondent, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, that the solicitor instructing him had a conversation with the migration agent representing the applicant which led the instructing solicitor to apprehend that there would be no appearance by the applicant.  As just noted, that has transpired.

  3. An application has been made by the respondent that I dismiss the proceedings under O 32 r 2. In the present circumstances I propose to make the order sought by the respondent. The applicant’s rights under the Act and rules are preserved, notwithstanding the order that I make: see, in particular, O35 r 7(2).

  4. Accordingly I order that the application is dismissed.  I further order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.  I direct that the respondent inform the applicant in writing within 7 days of the orders I have made and in summary of the reasons for doing so.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:4 May 2001

The Applicant did not appear.

Counsel for the Respondent: Anthony McInerny
Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing: 4 May 2001
Date of Judgment: 4 May 2001
Details
AGLC
Ya Quin Shi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 722
Case
[2001] FCA 722
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ya Quin Shi sought judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal in the Federal Court of Australia. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on 4 May 2001, but the applicant did not appear. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs applied for the case to be dismissed due to the applicant's non-appearance. The court considered the legal basis for dismissing the application without a hearing, focusing on the preservation of the applicant's rights and adherence to procedural fairness.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application could be dismissed under Order 32 Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules due to the applicant's non-appearance. The court had to balance the procedural fairness to the applicant with the need to efficiently manage the court's resources and ensure that the applicant's rights were not unfairly prejudiced. The court also needed to consider if the applicant's absence was due to any fault or neglect on the part of the respondent.

The court found that the applicant's non-appearance warranted the dismissal of the proceedings. It noted that the respondent's solicitor had made efforts to contact the applicant's migration agent, who indicated that the applicant would not be appearing. The court was satisfied that the respondent had not contributed to the applicant's absence and that the applicant's rights were preserved as per Order 35 Rule 7(2). The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. The respondent was also directed to notify the applicant of the dismissal and the reasons for it within seven days.

The court's final orders included dismissing the application, directing the applicant to pay the respondent's costs, and mandating the respondent to inform the applicant of the dismissal and its reasons within a week. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the efficient management of court resources in judicial review cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.