Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1345
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Appellant | |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
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.
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | VID 494 of 2014 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
BETWEEN: | VIKRAM DEEP SINGH Appellant
|
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
JUDGE: | NORTH J |
DATE: | 28 NOVEMBER 2014 |
PLACE: | MELBOURNE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 Before the Court is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court, delivered on 13 August 2014. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal made on 7 November 2013. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, not to grant the appellant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.
2 When the appeal came on for hearing there was no appearance by the appellant. The appellant was called outside of the Court and did not appear.
3 I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the appellant was served with notice of the hearing.
4 On 14 October 2014 the solicitors for the first respondent sent a letter addressed to the appellant at 3 Berry Court, Keysborough, Victoria, 3178 (the Keysborough address), notifying him that the matter was listed for hearing today, 28 November 2014, at 2.15 pm. The letter enclosed a copy of the letter from the Court to the parties listing the matter for hearing on that date. In addition, the letter from the first respondent’s solicitors stated:
If you do not attend on this occasion, the respondent will seek orders from the court that your matter be dismissed and that you pay the Minister’s legal costs of the proceedings.
5 The 14 October 2014 letter was sent, it appears, by express post. The copy which was produced to the Court during the hearing had a sticker attached to it with a number designed to be retained by the sender. It can be inferred from that sticker and the reference to express post on the letter that it required the recipient to accept the letter or else it would be returned to the sender.
6 On 28 October 2014 the solicitors for the first respondent wrote to the appellant enclosing a copy of the appeal book, again noting that the hearing was to be held on 28 November 2014 at 2.15 pm. The copy of that letter indicated that it was sent to the Keysborough address and also had a numbered sticker attached to it, indicating the likely requirement that the recipient sign for the letter.
7 On 21 November 2014 the solicitors for the first respondent sent a letter to the appellant enclosing the first respondent’s submissions. The letter again referred to the hearing date. The letter was stated to be sent by express post with a numbered sticker indicating that fact.
8 In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the appellant received notice of the hearing of the appeal. The appeal is dismissed under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because the appellant was absent when the appeal was called on for hearing.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. |
Associate:
