FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NAJA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 223 NAJA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affair N98 of 2003 ALLSOP J SYDNEY 20 MARCH 2003 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N98 of 2003 BETWEEN: NAJA APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: ALLSOP J DATE OF ORDER: 20 MARCH 2003 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed under Order 10 rule 3(2). 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. 3. The respondent notify the applicant by certified mail of the orders made above and of the terms of Order 35 rule 7(2)(a). 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 98 of 2003 BETWEEN: NAJA APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: ALLSOP J DATE: 20 MARCH 2003 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this matter an application is made under Order 10 rule 3(2). No notice of motion has been filed by the respondent. The respondent moves orally for the dismissal of the application. 2 The history of the matter is set out in an affidavit of Rohan John White, a solicitor employed by Sparke Helmore, the solicitors for the respondent in this matter. 3 An application was filed by the applicant on 10 February 2003. An officer of the Court at the registry wrote on the application that the time and date for the first directions hearing would be at 2.15 pm on Thursday 6 March 2003. 4 At 2.15pm on 6 March 2003 the matter was called on before Registrar Hedge. Ms Bernadette Rayment appeared at the directions hearing. There is evidence that satisfies me that no one appeared for the applicant. On that day orders and directions were made to stand the matter over for further directions to 18 March 2003 at 9.30 am before me. The respondent was required to notify the applicant in writing of the adjourned date and the proposal to seek summary dismissal of the application. The respondent was also directed to contact the applicant's panel adviser to ascertain whether he or she had made any contact with the applicant. 5 In his affidavit Mr White deposes that on the following day, 7 March 2003 he sent a letter to the applicant at the address nominated for service in his application for judicial review. The letter was in the following terms: We refer to the above matter and note that you did not attend the directions hearing on 6 March 2003 at 2:15pm. This matter has now been listed for a further directions hearing on 18 March 2003 at 9:30 am before his Honour Justice Allsop. Please note that you are required to attend the directions hearing listed for 18 March 2003 at 9:30 am. If you do not attend on this occasion, the respondent will seek orders from the Court that your application be summarily dismissed and that you pay the Minister's legal costs. If you have any queries please contact us. 6 Also on 7 March Mr White's secretary telephoned the panel adviser nominated for the applicant, a Mr Ian Archibald of counsel. Mr Archibald indicated that he had not been in contact with the applicant and also indicated that he was waiting until he had been served with a copy of the court book before he made attempts to contact the applicant. Mr Archibald confirmed that he had received the court book and would now write to the applicant. 7 One week later Mr White himself telephoned Mr Archibald and a conversation took place in the following terms: Mr White: I act for the respondent in this matter. The applicant failed to appear at his first directions hearing and we intend to make an application to have the matter struck out with costs if the applicant fails to appear at the next directions hearing on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 at 9.30 am. Have you had any contact with the applicant? Mr Archibald: I have not had any contact with the applicant. I was waiting to receive the court book which I now have but haven't received the tapes of the Tribunal hearing. I was waiting to receive the tapes before I made contact with him. Mr White: The applicant declined an invitation to attend a hearing before the Refugee Review Tribunal, so there are no tapes in this matter. In any event has the applicant contacted you? Mr Archibald: No. Mr White: If the applicant contacts you, or you successfully contact the applicant, can you let me know? Mr Archibald: Yes. 8 The matter was called on for directions before me on 18 March 2003. I had the matter called three times outside using the applicant's pseudonym NAJA. Section 91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) prohibits this Court from publishing the name of an applicant in proceedings of this kind. I take the view that calling a matter in public outside the Court at my direction would be a breach of that section. Assuming, as I am obliged to do in the absence of argument, that the section is constitutionally valid, this can be seen as an impediment to the due administration of justice in that a person in the position of the applicant may well not understand that he or she is being called outside the Court if he or she is within earshot of the call. For that reason I had the Court officer inspect the Court floor and at the time of the call there was no one on the floor of the Court building. For that reason I am prepared to work on the basis that there was no appearance both in Court and outside Court at 9.30 am on 18 March 2003. 9 The applicant apparently did not attend before the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant has failed to appear now at two directions hearings. The applicant may be waiting for his panel adviser to advise him. However, the procedures of the Court are designed for the expeditious and fair disposition of matters brought by litigants, and are not to be ignored. The applicant has shown no interest in his own case in this Court. I do not see why proceedings in which the applicant has evinced no interest should not be disposed of. I propose to make an order under order 10 rule 3(2) dismissing the application. 10 The orders which I make are as follows: 1. The application be dismissed under Order 10 rule 3(2). 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. 3. The respondent notify the applicant by certified mail of the orders made above and of the terms of Order 35 rule 7(2)(a). I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop . Associate: Dated: 20 March 2003 No appearance for the applicant Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 18 March 2003 Date of Judgment: 20 March 2003