FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

Singh  v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 1625


VINAY SINGH & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS


N 972 of 2004


HILL J

6 DECEMBER 2004

SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 972 OF 2004

 

BETWEEN:

VINAY SINGH & ORS

APPLICANT

 

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

 

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 DECEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

 


  1. The applications be dismissed.
  2. The applicants pay the respondent’s costs.

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

N 972 OF 2004

 

BETWEEN:

VINAY SINGH & ORS

APPLICANT

 

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

 

 

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE:

6 DECEMBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HILL J:


1                     Before the Court is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal, affirming the decision of a Delegate of the respondent Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, that the applicants were not entitled to the grant of a Business Skills (Residence) Class BH (Visas).

2                     A directions hearing in the matter was held on 16 July 2004 at which Mr Singh, one of the applicants, was present.  Directions were made including that the matter be listed for hearing this morning at 10.15am. When the matter was called on for hearing the applicants were not present.  Counsel for the respondent requests that in accordance with Order 32 Rule 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules, the proceedings be dismissed.  I would accede to that application.

3                     I should say that I have read the Tribunal's decision.  There is nothing to suggest that the Tribunal made any jurisdictional error.  The orders I would make accordingly are that:

(1)        the applications be dismissed;


(2)        the applicants pay the respondent's costs.



I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hill.



Associate:


Dated:              14 December 2004



No appearance for the Applicant




Counsel for the Respondent:

J A C Potts



Solicitor for the Respondent:

Clayton Utz



Date of Hearing:

6 December 2004



Date of Judgment:

6 December 2004