Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rahman v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1790 MD HABIBUR RAHMAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1067 OF 2000 LINDGREN J 5 DECEMBER 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1067 OF 2000
BETWEEN: MD HABIBUR RAHMAN
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER: 5 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1067 OF 2000
BETWEEN: MD HABIBUR RAHMAN
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: LINDGREN J
DATE: 5 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
General 1 Upon this matter being called on for hearing this afternoon, the applicant ("Mr Rahman") was called but did not appear. Mr Justin Smith of counsel with instructing solicitor were present ready for the hearing, as was an interpreter to assist Mr Rahman. 2 This morning, there was received in the Registry of the Court, by facsimile, a certificate dated 28 November 2000, of Dr K Viswanath, relating to Mr Rahman. There was no accompanying document. The certificate was to the effect that as at the date of it Mr Rahman was suffering from "allergic reaction to skin". The certificate said that he would be unfit for work for four weeks and was on treatment. The certificate did not describe any particular kind of work for which the health problem rendered Mr Rahman unfit. Unfitness for work for four weeks is not unfitness to attend court for half a day. I am not persuaded by the certificate at all. Moreover, Mr Rahman's case is a weak one and it is in everyone's interest that it be disposed of now. If the sending of the doctor's certificate by someone to the Court this morning is to be treated as an application by Mr Rahman for an adjournment, I refuse that application. 3 Order 32 subrule 2(1) provides, inter alia, that if, when a proceeding is called on for trial, any party is absent, the Court may dismiss the action or proceed with the trial. I have decided to dismiss the action. Mr Rahman was present before me on 16 November when his application was fixed for hearing today at 2.15 pm. The sending of the doctor's certificate to the Court this morning suggests that he knows that the hearing is fixed for this afternoon. 4 Notwithstanding what I have said, I think I should deal with the facts of the matter to some extent, if only to show that no injustice is done by a dismissal of the application for lack of appearance.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate