FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MZZZJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1218
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
First Applicant MZZZK Second Applicant | |
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an extension of time is refused.
2. The applicants pay the costs of the first respondent.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
|
|
GENERAL DIVISION |
VID 442 of 2014 |
|
BETWEEN: |
MZZZJ First Applicant MZZZK Second Applicant |
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
|
JUDGE: |
MIDDLETON J |
|
DATE: |
11 NOVEMBER 2014 |
|
PLACE: |
MELBOURNE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The applicants in this matter seek an extension of time to appeal from orders made in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 3 July 2014. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed an application made by the applicants for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (‘the Tribunal’) dated 19 December 2013. The applicants proposed to raise a single ground of appeal, if granted an extension of time to appeal, namely that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by not inviting the applicants to comment on or respond to certain information pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). It is to be noted that this argument was not raised before the Federal Circuit Court.
2 When the matter was called on before me no appearance was made by either applicant seeking to prosecute the application. Mr Tim Goodwin of Counsel for the first respondent has informed me of some discussions that took place in relation to the applicants last week, but none of the information that he has provided, which is on transcript, indicates any satisfactory reason for the applicants not to be here. If an adjournment was to be sought, then communication should have been made to the Court, or an application made today in the appropriate manner. No such communication or application has been made.
3 I am satisfied that the applicants knew that the hearing would proceed today at 2.15pm and there is no explanation at all for their failure to appear today. In those circumstances, the Court has the power under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to order the application to the Court be dismissed for failure of the applicants to attend the hearing relating to the application. In addition, if a party is absent when a matter is called on for hearing, the opposing party may apply to the Court for an order that the application be dismissed. The first respondent has sought by application that the application be dismissed.
4 In the circumstances, where there is no explanation for the failure to attend the hearing, I will dismiss the application with costs and so order. If either of the applicants wish to agitate the matter, they will need to make the appropriate application to the Court. I will order that:
(1) The application for an extension of time is refused.
(2) The applicants pay the costs of the first respondent.
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Middleton. |
Associate:
