Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZJQB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1808
SZJQB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1609 OF 2007
NORTH J
8 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1609 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJQB
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER: 8 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed pursuant to section 25(2B)(bb)(ii). 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal fixed at $1600. 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 1609 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJQB
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: NORTH J
DATE: 8 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The hearing of this appeal was listed to commence at 10.15 am today before Jessup J. I am satisfied that the appellant was notified that the appeal would be heard today at that time. A letter was sent by the Court on 20 September 2007, indicating that the appeal would be heard on 8 November 2007 at 10.15 am. Further, a letter dated 15 October 2007 was sent by the first respondent's solicitors, by express post. Ms Johnson, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, indicated that the letter sent by the first respondent's solicitors has not been returned to them. Both letters were sent to the address for service on the notice of appeal, namely, 1/12 Evaline Street, Campsie 2194. In addition, this morning my associate attempted to ring the mobile phone number indicated on the notice of appeal. An unusual ring tone was heard and the call was not answered. 2 The matter was adjourned at 10.30 am to allow the court officer to make enquiries elsewhere in the building, and she was accompanied by a Mandarin-speaking interpreter. The appellant was not located either in the vicinity of this courtroom or elsewhere in the building. 3 The letters directed to the appellant indicated that the matter would be heard by Jessup J. Ultimately however this appeal was transferred to me so that Jessup J could hear an appeal which I had been listed to hear but could not because of my friendship with the Refugee Review Tribunal member whose decision was reviewed by the Federal Magistrates Court. However, Jessup J is hearing that appeal in the courtroom immediately next to this courtroom, full inquiries have been made in the vicinity of that courtroom and I am satisfied that the appellant is not in the area. 4 In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the appellant has failed to attend the hearing of the appeal, and I will order that the appeal be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii). I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.
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