FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZGTN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1482 SZGTN AND SZGTO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NSD 1506 OF 2006 GYLES J 30 OCTOBER 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1506 OF 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZGTN First Appellant SZGTO Second Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE: GYLES J DATE OF ORDER: 30 OCTOBER 2006 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Each appeal be dismissed. 2. Each appellant is to pay the costs of the respondent on an indemnity basis. 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 NSD 1506 OF 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZGTN First Appellant SZGTO Second Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE: GYLES J DATE: 30 OCTOBER 2006 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Emmett FM of 19 July 2006 (SZGTN & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] FMCA 1074) dismissing an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirming the decisions of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing to grant protection visas to the appellants. 2 The appellants have failed to appear at 10.15 am when the matter was listed. I have waited for nearly 10 minutes. They still have not appeared. I have no reason to believe that they were not properly informed of this proceeding. I note that neither appellant chose to attend the original hearing before the Tribunal. I have had the opportunity of looking at the decision below and the notice of appeal. It seems to me that the appeal has no merit whatever and that the failure to appear this morning is likely to be a deliberate failure. I therefore dismiss each appeal for non-appearance. 3 Obviously the appellants should be ordered to pay the costs of the respondent. I am inclined to order that those costs be paid on an indemnity basis. I do not think I will go to the trouble of reconstituting the proceeding to join the Tribunal at this stage. 4 The orders of the Court are: each appeal is dismissed; each appellant is to pay the costs of the Minister on an indemnity basis. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate: Dated: 10 November 2006 The Appellants did not appear Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms T Quinn of Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 30 October 2006 Date of Judgment: 30 October 2006