FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
HZAAG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 259
Place: | Sydney |
Division: | GENERAL DIVISION |
Category: | No catchwords |
Number of paragraphs: | |
Solicitor for the First Respondent: | Ms Warner-Knight of Australian Government Solicitor |
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Applicant | |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the Minister’s costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | TAD 44 of 2012 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
BETWEEN: | HZAAG Applicant
|
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
JUDGE: | KATZMANN J |
DATE: | 6 MARCH 2013 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Revised from transcript
1 This is an application for an extension of time in which to appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court. The applicant is an Indian citizen who was refused a protection visa. The matter was originally listed for hearing before Kerr J in Hobart on 14 December 2012. That date was vacated and it was later listed for hearing before me during the sitting period 11 February to 8 March 2013. On 25 January 2013 a legal case manager for the Court’s National Appeals Registrar wrote to the applicant at his address for service informing him that the application had been listed for hearing today and of the time, date and place of hearing. The letter provided information about the steps required in preparation for the hearing and drew the applicant’s attention to the directions given by the Deputy District Registrar on 21 December 2012.
2 In the 25 January letter, the applicant was asked to take notice that if he or his lawyer did not attend the court at the specified time, orders, including an order as to costs, might be made. Today, at the appointed hour, the applicant did not appear. The matter was stood down for another 45 minutes. When it was called on at the later time, there was again no appearance by or for the applicant, and when his name was called three times outside the courtroom, there was no response.
3 The Minister applied for an order that the application be dismissed pursuant to r 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which, in substance, relevantly provides that if the applicant is absent when an application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal is called on for hearing, any other party may apply to the Court for an order that the application be dismissed.
4 I am satisfied that the applicant was made aware of the hearing date and of the time the matter was likely to come on for hearing. I am therefore satisfied that he was absent when his application was called on for hearing. In these circumstances, the order the Minister seeks should be made.
5 The Minister seeks an order that the applicant pays the first respondent’s costs. I see no reason not to accede to that application. Accordingly, I make an order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Katzmann. |
Associate:
