SZLHW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 541

SZLHW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 541

Because the applicant sought the indulgence of an extension of time but failed to attend the hearing, the applicant failed to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence. That default justified dismissal of the application, and the first respondent, having attended ready to proceed, was entitled to fixed costs of $1,550.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal / Application for Extension of Time From a Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs fixed for the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'failure to Prosecute With Due Diligence' 'dismissal for Default' 'costs']
['migration' 'civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'failure to Prosecute With Due Diligence' 'dismissal for Default' '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

Migration Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal / Application for Extension of Time From a Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal filed outside the 21 day period required by the Federal Court Rules.' "Whether the applicant's failure to attend the hearing constituted failure to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence and justified dismissal." 'Whether costs should be ordered in favour of the first respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant sought the indulgence of an extension of time but failed to attend the hearing, the applicant failed to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence. That default justified dismissal of the application, and the first respondent, having attended ready to proceed, was entitled to fixed costs of $1,550.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs fixed for the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal filed by the applicant on 12 March 2009 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs, fixed in the amount of $1,550."]