FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sleiman v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2012] FCA 692
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Applicant |
AND: | SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Proceeding NSD 859/2011 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 860 of 2011 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
BETWEEN: | DALAL SLEIMAN Applicant |
AND: | SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Respondent |
JUDGE: | JAGOT J |
DATE OF ORDER: | 27 JUNE 2012 |
WHERE MADE: | SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Proceeding NSD 860/2011 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 859 of 2011 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
BETWEEN: | OHIDA SLEIMAN Applicant |
AND: | SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Respondent |
JUDGE: | JAGOT J |
DATE: | 27 JUNE 2012 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 860 of 2011 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
BETWEEN: | DALAL SLEIMAN Applicant |
AND: | SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Respondent |
JUDGE: | JAGOT J |
DATE: | 27 JUNE 2012 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 These are two applications for extensions of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from two decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The matters relate to the cancellation by Centrelink of the applicants’ Youth Allowance. The applicants are sisters and have been represented by leave up to today’s date by their father. As disclosed in a chronology which has been provided to me by Mr Thompson, who appears for the respondent in each proceeding (being the Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations), these proceedings were commenced on 7 June 2011.
2 The proceedings were originally listed for hearing on 31 August 2011, but the applicants made an application to adjourn the hearings to a hearing date in December. This was done, but subsequently the court itself became unavailable to hear the matters at that time. The parties were notified on 20 December 2012 by the court that I was available to hear the matter on 8 June 2012, and the matters were then both fixed for hearing on that date. However, the court received a facsimile communication from the applicants and their father on 20 March 2012 to the effect that due to family reasons they could not be at the hearing on 8 June 2012 and they requested that the hearing date be vacated. The applicants also notified the court at the same time that they would be returning to Australia from overseas on 17 June 2012, providing evidence to that effect of their airline tickets. The matter was then fixed for hearing on today’s date. By another email communication from the Registry of the Court to both parties, the parties were notified that I was prepared to vacate the hearing date of 8 June 2012 on the basis of the correspondence from the applicants, and that the hearing would be relisted in late June or August. Subsequently, the Registry forwarded a further email to both parties, being email addresses which had previously involved successful correspondence with the parties including the applicants, to the effect that both matters were listed for hearing today at 10.15 am.
3 There have been no subsequent communications from the applicants to the Registry, and no subsequent communications between Mr Thompson and the applicants. However, the applicants were notified by email on 3 April 2012 of today’s hearing date, and they were earlier notified that the matter could be fixed for hearing in late June. They then received a follow-up email on 14 June 2012 from the Registry to the same effect that the matters had been listed for hearing today. However, when the matter was called this morning there was no appearance by the applicants.
4 Mr Thompson seeks that the proceeding be dismissed for failure to appear and for costs. Under rule 5.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, a party is in default if the party fails to attend a hearing in the proceeding and, by rule 5.23, if an applicant is in default a respondent may apply to the court for an order that, relevantly, the proceeding be dismissed for the whole or any part of the relief claimed by the applicant.
5 In the present case, the application is one for an extension of time. The applicants have both failed to appear on their application today, despite the matter having been vacated on a number of previous occasions at their request and to meet their convenience and personal situation, and the matter being refixed for hearing on a date when, according to the material, the applicants informed the Court that they would have returned to Australia. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that both applications should be dismissed with costs, and accordingly I so order.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jagot. |
Associate:
