NAWI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 253

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAWI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 253 NAWI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N1496 of 2003 HILL J 16 MARCH 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1496 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAWI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HILL J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 MARCH 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs of the application.

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 N1496 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAWI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HILL J

DATE: 16 MARCH 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Before the court is an application filed 3 September 2003 by the Applicant, identified by the initials NAWI, seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which affirms the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs, refusing to grant to him a protection visa. 2 The matter was called on for hearing and the Applicant did not appear. Tendered and marked Exhibit 1 was a courier request form dated 4 December which showed that the solicitors for the Respondent had forwarded to the Applicant a copy of the green book of relevant documents. Also forwarded to the Applicant was a letter from the respondent's solicitors dated 4 December 2003 which reminded the Applicant to bring the documents with him for the hearing of the case this morning. That letter makes it clear that the initial change of date of the hearing of the matter from 8 March 2004 until this morning was clearly made known to the Applicant. I should say that the documents were not returned from which it may be inferred that they were delivered. 3 It might also be noted that a more recent attempt on the part of the solicitors for the Respondent to contact the applicant was unsuccessful as it appears in the meantime the Applicant was no longer residing at the address for service which he had given to the court at the time of filing his application. The court has not received any notification of the change of that address. 4 In the circumstances, and as the Applicant is not present, I would in accordance with Order 32 Rule 2(c) of the Federal Court Rules dismiss the application and order the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs of it. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hill.