Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1072

Federal Court of Australia

Appeal from:	Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 2597

File number:	SAD 146 of 2020

Judgment of:	BESANKO J

Date of judgment:	3 September 2021

Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — application for order under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that appeal be dismissed — where appellant appealed from orders made by Federal Circuit Court of Australia — where appellant did not appear at hearing of appeal — where hearing adjourned for purpose of making attempt to contact appellant but appellant could not be contacted — whether appropriate to exercise power in r 36.75 — application granted

Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.75

Division:	General Division

Registry:	South Australia

National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:	4

Date of hearing:	3 September 2021

Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant did not appear

Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr S Cummings

Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The Second Respondent entered a Submitting Notice, save as to costs

ORDERS

		SAD 146 of 2020

BETWEEN:	JAGDEEP SINGH Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

order made by:	BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 SEPTEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,500.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BESANKO J:

1 This is an appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 10 September 2020 (Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 2597). The appeal concerns an application by the appellant for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, which was refused by a delegate of the first respondent. The delegate’s decision was affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the appellant’s subsequent application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Circuit Court.

2 As far as the documents are concerned, they show that the appellant is self-represented. His Notice of appeal contains details of a mobile telephone number, an email address and what appears to be a residential address. The appellant did not file and serve any written submissions in support of his appeal as he was permitted to do under previous orders of the Court. The appeal was listed for hearing today, the appellant did not appear and I adjourned briefly to see if my associates could contact the appellant on his mobile telephone. Two calls were made and both were directed to message bank.

3 On the resumption of the hearing, the first respondent applied for an order under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the appeal be dismissed in the absence of the appellant and an order for costs, fixed in the amount of $4,500. I decided to adjourn the appeal to 2:15 pm in order that one further attempt be made by my chambers to contact the appellant on his mobile telephone and so that an email could be sent to the appellant at the email address provided by him in his Notice of appeal. Those things were done and did not lead to any contact from the appellant or his appearance at 2:15 pm today. Nor has the registry of the Court had any contact from the appellant.

4 The appellant has been given adequate notice that his appeal was listed for hearing today. The first notice was sent by my chambers on 28 July 2021, followed by further correspondence from my chambers on 27 August 2021 and 31 August 2021, again mentioning the date and making arrangements for the hearing to be conducted by Microsoft Teams. He has not responded to that correspondence or contacted my chambers. At no time has he indicated that today’s date is unsuitable for some reason, he has not appeared today and he has made no contact with my chambers during the morning. In my opinion, it is an appropriate case to exercise the power in r 36.75.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Besanko.

Associate:

Dated: 9 September 2021

Top