Singh v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 508

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 508

HARPREET SINGH v MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL and MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

VID 26 of 2009

MARSHALL J

18 MAY 2009

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 26 of 2009

BETWEEN: HARPREET SINGH

Applicant

AND: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER: 18 MAY 2009

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the application. 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

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 26 of 2009

BETWEEN: HARPREET SINGH

Applicant

AND: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE: 18 MAY 2009

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, Mr Singh, sought judicial review in the Federal Magistrates Court of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal. The application was listed for hearing on 31 October 2008 but Mr Singh did not appear. On 26 November 2008 Mr Singh sought a relisting (in effect the reinstatement of the proceeding) because he had mistakenly thought the hearing was to occur on 7 November 2008. 2 The reinstatement application came before Burchardt FM on 18 December 2008. The application had been marked with a return date of 18 December 2008. However, there was no formal listing of the matter in correspondence to the parties. 3 His Honour had expected an application to be made for reinstatement of the reinstatement application itself. But that did not happen. Instead Mr Singh applied for leave to appeal from the dismissal of his reinstatement application. 4 The application for leave to appeal from the order of 18 December 2008 is futile because the Federal Magistrates Court is willing to hear an application to reinstate the reinstatement application as is clear from [23] of the judgment below. The setting aside by this Court of the 18 December 2008 order could only achieve the same result. As there is no practical utility in the application for leave to appeal, it is dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.