![]() |
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
Federal Court of Australia |
Last Updated: 22 July 1999
Chen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 959
MIGRATION - application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal refusing protection visa - dismissal of proceedings under Federal Court Rules, O 32, r 2(1)(c), on the basis that the applicant has not appeared
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476(1)
Federal Court Rules, O 32, r 2(1)(c)
JIAN KAI CHEN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 167 OF 1999
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
PLACE: SYDNEY
DATE: 28 JUNE 1999 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: Applicant AND: Respondent JUDGE:
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 167 OF 1999
JIAN KAI CHEN
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
SACKVILLE J DATE OF ORDER: 28 JUNE 1999 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings.
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 | N 167 OF 1999 |
|
BETWEEN: | JIAN KAI CHEN
Applicant |
|
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent |
JUDGE:
SACKVILLE J DATE: 28 JUNE 1999 PLACE: SYDNEY
2 The matter has been called for hearing today. The applicant has not appeared. The matter was listed for hearing at a directions hearing held on 9 April 1999. The applicant was present at that directions hearing and was therefore aware of the date upon which the hearing was to take place. In addition, Mr Markus, who appears on behalf of the Minister, has tendered a letter dated 24 June 1999. In that letter, the Australian Government Solicitor forwarded to the applicant a copy of the respondent's outline of submissions. The letter also advised the applicant that the proceedings had been listed for hearing today, 28 June 1999. Of course, as I have already mentioned, the applicant was aware of the scheduled hearing date by reason of his attendance at the directions hearing on 9 April 1999.
3 In these circumstances, Mr Markus applies, pursuant to Federal Court Rules, O 32, r 2(1)(c) to have the proceedings dismissed. This sub-rule permits the Court to dismiss the action if the applicant does not appear at the hearing. In my opinion, this is an appropriate case for such an order to be made. I should indicate that I have read the application for an order of review, the RRT's decision and the Minister's submissions.
4 Although I have not had the benefit of an appearance by the applicant, there is nothing in the material before the Court to suggest that the RRT's decision was infected by an error of law. That decision was based upon findings of fact which are set out in the RRT's reasons for decision.
5 In the circumstances, I order that the application be dismissed. I also order that the applicant pay the Minister's costs of the proceedings.
|
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice
Sackville. |
Associate:
Dated: 28 June 1999
|
Counsel for the Applicant: | None |
| Solicitor for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
| Date of Hearing: | 28 June 1999 |
| Date of Judgment: | 28 June 1999 |
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1999/959.html