Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases

MIGRATION - Refugee Review Tribunal - application for review of decision affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the Applicant - non- compliance with directions - matter placed in Non-compliance List - where the Applicant does not appear - application dismissed under R. 13.03A.

NBCG v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 836 (4 November 2004)

NBCG v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 836 (4 November 2004)
Last Updated: 6 December 2004

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NBCG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
[2004] FMCA 836




MIGRATION - Refugee Review Tribunal - application for review of decision affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the Applicant - non- compliance with directions - matter placed in Non-compliance List - where the Applicant does not appear - application dismissed under R. 13.03A.




Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 Rr. 13.03A and 16.05(2)(a)

Applicant:
NBCG




Respondent:


MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS




File No:


SYG 1005 of 2004




Delivered on:


4 November 2004




Delivered at:


Sydney




Hearing date:


4 November 2004




Judgment of:


Scarlett FM




REPRESENTATION

Applicant:


No Appearance




Solicitor for the Respondent:


Ms Maurer




Solicitors for the Respondent:


Australian Government Solicitor




ORDERS

(1) That the application be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules as there was no appearance by the Applicant.

(2) That the Respondent notify the Applicant of this order and the provisions of Rule 16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules within 7 days.

(3) That the Application pay the Respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $ 1,500.00.

(4) Transcript of reasons for decision required.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES

COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

SYDNEY



SYG 1005 of 2004

NBCG



Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS





Respondent


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the Applicant known as NBCG for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant him a protection visa. The decision was handed down on 28 January 2004. The matter has been listed for final hearing on 1 March 2005. It is a matter that was commenced in the Federal Court but by order of that court was transferred to this court on 19 March 2004. On that date the Honourable Justice Hill made orders by consent relating to the filing and serving of an amended application and any affidavit evidence on or before 6 May 2004.

2. That direction has not been complied with. Indeed the Applicant has failed to file and serve an amended application in the terms described and I am also of the understanding that the Applicant has failed to file his affidavit material. The matter is well past the time for compliance with that direction. An application was made by the Respondent's solicitor on 21 May for the matter to be placed in a non-compliance list and that has in fact happened. Due to the fact that the court is sitting in two locations in the city of Sydney I have caused the Applicant to be called at both Queens Square and on Level 7 of John Maddison Tower.

3. The Applicant has not appeared in either place. He has been called twice here. The first time at a quarter to ten, the second time at three minutes past ten. He has not appeared. It is appropriate therefore for the application to be dismissed according to rule 13.03A of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules as there has been no appearance by the Applicant. I propose to do that now. I do propose to order the Respondent to notify the Applicant of the order and also of the provisions of rule 16.05(2)(a).

4. The other situation, of course, is that I must look at the question of costs. The Respondent has prepared a court book which appears to me at least to be quite comprehensive. The Respondent has done everything that is required of the Respondent at this stage to get the matter ready for hearing. Ms Maurer from the office of the Respondent has appeared today and has even prepared short minutes of the orders which she seeks. In my view this is a matter where it is appropriate for an order that the Applicant should pay the Respondent's costs.

5. I note that Ms Maurer seeks the sum of $1500. In my view on inspecting the file this is an appropriate figure and well within the range contemplated by schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. I make the orders in the attached schedule.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate: V Lee

Date: 18 November 2004
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia