FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1224
KULDIP SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 343 of 2000
MADGWICK J
7 AUGUST 2000
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
N 343 of 2000 |
|
BETWEEN: |
KULDIP SINGH APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The proceedings be dismissed for want of prosecution by the applicant, pursuant to Order 32 Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
N 343 of 2000 |
|
BETWEEN: |
APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
1 When there was no appearance by or for the applicant shortly after 10.15am, the matter then being listed for hearing, Mr Justin Smith who appears for the respondent Minister, caused inquiries to be made of the chambers of counsel for the applicant. The information elicited was that counsel for the applicant was aware the matter was listed today and had left his chambers as if to come here. He has not arrived, my associate has established that the lifts are working normally and the matter is simply a mystery. (Apparently, nobody with any knowledge of the matter from the applicant's solicitors could be contacted by telephone.)
2 It may be that the applicant is no longer legally represented and does not wish to appear himself, and there has been some failure on the part of normally courteous and conscientious legal practitioners to inform the Court and their opponents of the position. It may be that something else has transpired. At all events there is no appearance and it seems to me that the proper course is, pursuant to an application by the respondent, to dismiss the proceeding for want of prosecution by the applicant, pursuant to Order 32 Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules.
3 If, as I strongly suspect, some solution to the mystery materialises today, then no doubt an application will be made to vacate the orders that I am making. Such an application could be made today on a phone call’s notice to Mr Smith or his instructing solicitor.
4 Failing that, the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. |
Associate:
Dated: 7 August 2000
|
No appearance by the applicant |
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
J Smith |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Australian Government Solicitor |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
7 August 2000 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
7 August 2000 |
