Rovcanin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 141 (19 February 2001)

Last Updated: 26 February 2001

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rovcanin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 141

VLADAN ROVCANIN & ORS v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 888 OF 2000

TAMBERLIN J

SYDNEY

19 FEBRUARY 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 888 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	VLADAN ROVCANIN & ORS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 FEBRUARY 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed with costs.

2. The applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion.

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 888 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	VLADAN ROVCANIN & ORS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	19 FEBRUARY 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 In this matter there has been no appearance by the applicant. I have been informed from the Bar Table and I have read an affidavit in relation to the matter and seen correspondence from which I am satisfied there has been adequate notification to the applicant of the hearing today at the time the matter was set down. I also note that at the time I deliver this judgment it is past 10.15 am so that would appear to indicate that there has not simply been a mistake as to time.

2 I therefore propose to dismiss the matter, pursuant to O 32 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules for want of appearance and prosecution of the matter by the applicant. In doing so I order that the applicant should pay the costs of the respondent of the hearing today and of the application to this Court.

3 I would draw to the applicant's attention the provisions of O 35 r 7, which provides that the Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order when exercising jurisdiction at first instance where the order has been made in the absence of a party. But of course, sufficient circumstances have to be shown to warrant the making of such an order. In the present case it seems unlikely that such an application will be made, but if one is made then it will be entertained on its merits.

4 In the circumstances, I do not find it necessary to consider the Notice of Motion which has been filed by the respondent and accordingly, the costs of the notice of motion will follow the outcome and the respondent will have the costs of that notice.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated: 23 February 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Kaur-Bains
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	19 February 2001
Date of Judgment:	19 February 2001