Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 84

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 84 Appeal from: Kaur & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 2138

File number: SAD 333 of 2015

Judge: PERRY J

Date of judgment: 11 February 2016

Date of addendum: 16 February 2016

Catchwords: MIGRATION – appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court dismissing an application for judicial review of a Migration Review Tribunal decision – where Minister had not approved the employer's nomination application – appeal dismissed

Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

Date of hearing: 11 February 2016

Registry: South Australia

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 25

Counsel for the First, Second and Third Appellants: The appellants appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr P D'Assumpcao

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting appearance, save as to costs

ADDENDUM TO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 15 February 2016, after judgment had been delivered with ex temporare reasons given, the Court Support Manager of the South Australian Federal Court Registry alerted my chambers to an email that had been sent by the first appellant on 8 February 2016 (three days before the hearing). That email read in part: …I have hearing on 11/02/2015 at 10:15 am but unfortunately I couldn't find any lawyer who can represent me so I would highly appreciate u if u can give me some extension so I can find a lawyer who can look after my case. (Errors in original.) 2 Due to an oversight, that email was not read by the Registry until 15 February 2016. This oversight was unfortunate and means that my finding at [24] of my reasons that "[n]o application had been filed or foreshadowed" was incorrect. 3 Ultimately, however, nothing turns on this oversight as I would not have allowed the application for an adjournment in any event. The application was still late, the appellant had already had sufficient time in which to locate a lawyer (the notice of appeal having been filed on 18 September 2015), there was nothing to indicate that by adjourning the hearing the first appellant would be able to locate legal representation, and, as I found at [24], the appeal had no prospects of success. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Addendum to the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perry.