BZACE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2013] FCA 95

BZACE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2013] FCA 95

Although rule 39.05 gave the Court power to vary or set aside the orders made on 22 November 2012 in appropriate circumstances, the applicant did not appear, had been notified of the hearing date by the District Registrar's letter dated 9 January 2013, had a history of non-attendance, and had not contacted the registry. The Court was satisfied it had power to dismiss the interlocutory application and that it was appropriate to do so.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside Orders Dated 22 November 2012 After Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
The applicant's interlocutory application was dismissed with costs payable to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['refugee Review Tribunal' 'setting Aside Entered Orders' 'non Attendance' 'costs']
['immigration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['refugee Review Tribunal' 'setting Aside Entered Orders' 'non Attendance' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside Orders Dated 22 November 2012 After Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the orders made on 22 November 2012 dismissing the appeal should be set aside.' "Whether the applicant's interlocutory application should be dismissed in the applicant's absence." "Whether the applicant should pay the first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although rule 39.05 gave the Court power to vary or set aside the orders made on 22 November 2012 in appropriate circumstances, the applicant did not appear, had been notified of the hearing date by the District Registrar's letter dated 9 January 2013, had a history of non-attendance, and had not contacted the registry. The Court was satisfied it had power to dismiss the interlocutory application and that it was appropriate to do so.

Court Disposition

The applicant's interlocutory application was dismissed with costs payable to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's interlocutory application filed on 11 December 2012 be dismissed." "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the said interlocutory application."]