Panjeta v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 206

The appellant had notice of the hearing, did not appear when the matter was called and after a short adjournment, and had made no attempt to contact the Registry; the case therefore fell within r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and it was appropriate to dismiss the appeal.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 March 2014
Procedural Posture: Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Hearing of Appeal; Appellant Did Not Appear; Appeal Dismissed Under R 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics: ['appeal' 'non Appearance at Hearing' 'dismissal of Appeal' 'costs']

['migration Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['appeal' 'non Appearance at Hearing' 'dismissal of Appeal' '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

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Hearing of Appeal; Appellant Did Not Appear; Appeal Dismissed Under R 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the appeal should be dismissed under r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because the appellant did not appear at the hearing.' 'Whether the appellant had notice of the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, including the notice of objection to competency."]