Yoo v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 2149
•19 December 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| YOO & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 2149 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – Educational (Temporary) (Class TH) visa – application for review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal – where applicants did not attend court on hearing date. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 |
| First Applicant: | YONG JIN YOO |
| Second Applicant: | JEONG SUK MIN |
| Third Applicant: | SUNG HYUN YOO |
| Fourth Applicant: | SUNG AH YOO |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2861 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 19 December 2007 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 19 December 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 December 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | No Appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Nil |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The Application is dismissed.
The First and Second applicants are to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,500.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2861 of 2007
| YONG JIN YOO |
First Applicant
| JEONG SUK MIN |
Second Applicant
| SUNG HYUN YOO |
Third Applicant
| SUNG AH YOO |
Fourth Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
The application before the Court is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal signed on 24 July and handed down on 13 August 2007.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the minister finding that the visa applicants were not entitled to the grant of Educational (Temporary) (Class TH) Visas.
The applicants sought judicial review of that decision by means of an application and affidavit in support filed on 17 September 2007.
The application came before the Court for the first time on 8 October and was originally listed for hearing on the afternoon of 13 December. Due to judicial unavailability the application was adjourned for hearing until today the 19 December, again at 2.15 pm.
The applicants were advised in writing by the Court. I am also informed that they were advised in writing by the solicitors for the minister.
Not one of the applicants has appeared. No message has been received from the applicants or anyone on their behalf indicating that the adult applicants at least have been hindered, delayed or prevented from attending Court today due to illness, injury or other emergency. There is just no word from them.
I note that the applicants have not filed the setting down fees they were required to do.
I propose to dismiss the application under the provisions of r.13.03A(c) due to the non-attendance by any of the applicants at the hearing. This is also a suitable matter for costs. I propose to make an order for costs in favour of the first respondent minister. The amount sought by
Mr Smith of counsel, which I consider to be appropriate in the circumstances, is $4500. I note that the scale would in fact allow more.
I am also aware of the fact that the first and second applicants are the parents and the third and fourth applicants are the children. In my view it is the first and second applicants who should pay the first respondent's costs and they will pay that amount in the sum of $4500.00.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: A.Coutman
Date: 14 January 2008
0
0
2