FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 115

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The appeal is dismissed.

2.    The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1    This is an appeal from the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court delivered on 22 October 2013 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal.

2    The appellant did not appear at this hearing of the appeal.

3    The Court was informed from the bar table by Ms Burchell, who appeared on behalf of the first respondent, that a solicitor for the first respondent phoned the appellant on the mobile phone number provided by him on his visa application. The phone call was made yesterday, Tuesday, 11 February 2014. The solicitor spoke to the appellant who said that he knew that the appeal was to be heard on the following day. The appellant said that he was feeling unwell. The solicitor advised him that if he was to seek an adjournment, then his request should be accompanied by a medical certificate. The appellant said that he had not seen a doctor but that he would attend the final hearing.

4    The appellant was called outside the court today and did not appear. In these circumstances, the court is empowered by rule 36.75(1)(a)(i) to dismiss the appeal in view of the appellant’s absence. That is the course I intend to follow.

Associate:

Dated:    20 February 2014