FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZOAT v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 846 Citation: SZOAT v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 846 Appeal from: Application for extension of time: SZOAT v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2010] FMCA 358 Parties: SZOAT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number: NSD 636 of 2010 Judge: NORTH J Date of judgment: 4 August 2010 Date of hearing: 4 August 2010 Date of last submissions: 4 August 2010 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Warner Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 636 of 2010 BETWEEN: SZOAT Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: NORTH J DATE OF ORDER: 4 AUGUST 2010 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. That the application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal against the orders of the Federal Magistrates Court made on 12 May 2010 is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first 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 Federal Law Search on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 636 of 2010 BETWEEN: SZOAT Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: NORTH J DATE: 4 AUGUST 2010 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Before the Court is an application for an extension of time within which to serve a notice of appeal from orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 12 May 2010. 2 When the matter was called on this morning and the applicant was called outside the Court, there was no appearance. Consequently, Ms Warner the solicitor for the first respondent rang the mobile telephone number provided by the applicant to the Federal Magistrates Court. Ms Warner then recounted to the Court the conversation which she had with a person who identified himself as the applicant. In that conversation the applicant indicated that he did not intend to come to Court, that he had taken some alternative procedure to advance his interests. 3 The first respondent has therefore sought orders pursuant to O 35A r 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules that the application be dismissed with costs. Such an order is justified following the failure of the applicant to appear on the application and thereby failing to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence (O 35A r 2(1)(f)). I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. Associate: Dated: 12 August 2010