Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMLC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 65
SZMLC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1756 of 2008
COLLIER J
9 FEBRUARY 2009
BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1756 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMLC
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE OF ORDER: 9 FEBRUARY 2009
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $2,100. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1756 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMLC
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE: 9 FEBRUARY 2009
PLACE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Smith FM of 24 October 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 27 May 2008. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. 2 This morning there was no appearance by the appellant. I asked the Court Officer to call the matter outside Court but there was no response from the appellant. Ms Rayment for the Minister applied for the matter to be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and tendered a copy of a letter from her firm to the appellant dated 27 January 2009 in which the appellant was informed that, if he did not appear at Court for the hearing, the Minister would apply for the matter to be dismissed with costs. 3 I adjourned the hearing during which time my associate with the assistance of the interpreter Ms Wang rang the appellant at the contact telephone number in the Court file. 4 My associate informed me that she spoke with the appellant with the assistance of the interpreter, and that the appellant said in summary: · he was unaware he had to be in Court today; · previously his lawyer had always contacted him of any matters; · he received a letter in late January but could not read it; · he cannot understand English. 5 Clearly it is unfortunate that the appellant was not in Court this morning for the hearing. However, notwithstanding the failure of the appellant to appear and the reasons given my associate this morning, in view of the nature of this case I consider that I am in a position to deliver judgment on the material before me.
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