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 - Visa - partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa - Migration Review Tribunal - non-compliance with directions - where applicant fails to comply with directions - Rule 13.03 applied - where applicant does not attend court - Rule 13.03A applied - application dismissed.

SZCLB v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 956 (2 December 2004)

SZCLB v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 956 (2 December 2004)
Last Updated: 22 December 2004

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCLB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
[2004] FMCA 956




MIGRATION - Visa - partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa - Migration Review Tribunal - non-compliance with directions - where applicant fails to comply with directions - Rule 13.03 applied - where applicant does not attend court - Rule 13.03A applied - application dismissed.




Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.91X

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, Rr. 13.03; 13.03A

Applicant:
SZCLB




Respondent:


MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS




File No:


SYG 64 of 2004




Delivered on:


2 December 2004




Delivered at:


Sydney




Hearing date:


2 December 2004




Judgment of:


Scarlett FM




REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:


No appearance




Solicitors for the Respondent:


Mr Cramer

Blake Dawson Waldron




ORDERS

(1) The application is dismissed for non-compliance with a direction and non-appearance by the applicant.

(2) I vacate the hearing date of 10.15am on 25 August 2005.

(3) The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $2,500.00.

(4) The application is removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES

COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

SYDNEY



SYG 64 of 2004

SZCLB



Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS





Respondent


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal handed down on 8 December 2003.

2. The Tribunal affirmed a decision by a delegate of the Minister, finding that the applicant was not entitled to the grant of a Partner (temporary) Class UK Visa.

3. On 2 April 2004 Hedge R, listed the matter for hearing on the morning of 25 August 2005. The learned registrar also made orders about filing and serving an amended and particularised application and all evidence upon which the applicant proposes to rely on or before 14 June 2004. This has not been done. The applicant in fact has taken no steps to progress the matter.

4. The respondent, through her solicitors, has in fact prepared a comprehensive Court book and appears to have done all that is necessary, at this stage at least, to have the matter ready for hearing on the appointed date.

5. When the applicant had not complied with the registrar's directions, the respondent, early last month, sought to have this matter placed in the non-compliance list and it was listed today.

6. I have given leave for the filing in Court of an affidavit of Benjamin Alexander Kramer, solicitor for the respondent, to which is annexed copies of a letter dated 28 March 2004 from the applicant and a copy of his letter to the applicant, dated the 10th but posted on 11 November 2004, showing that the matter had been placed in the non-compliance list today.

7. The letter makes it quite clear that the matter is listed for hearing at this Court and indeed the respondent's solicitor enclosed a map. The letter makes it quite clear that an application would be made to dismiss the application with costs and non-compliance with the Court's direction.

8. The applicant has not appeared. He has been called on two separate occasions, three times outside the Court. An interpreter has been ordered and has attended punctually. Regrettably there is no one here to make use of her services. I do not propose to keep this matter in the list any longer. The Court has pressure placed upon it to provide hearing dates and in my view those dates should be made available for genuine applicants who have a case which they wish to have determined by the Court. It is my intention to make an order dismissing the application.

9. I am satisfied that the amount of costs sought is a reasonable amount. I am satisfied too that this is a matter that justifies making an order for costs.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate: S. Polley

Date: 10 December 2004
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia