SZLQR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 936

SZLQR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 936

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing despite having been duly notified of the time and place and having confirmed receipt of notice. That failure amounted to a failure to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence under Order 35A rule 2(1)(f) of the Federal Court Rules, enlivening the Court's power under Order 35A rule 3(1)(a) to dismiss the proceeding. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Hearing of Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $1,000.
Legal Topics
['refugee Review Tribunal Decision' 'constitutional Writ Relief' 'leave to Appeal' 'non Attendance at Hearing' 'dismissal for Default']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['refugee Review Tribunal Decision' 'constitutional Writ Relief' 'leave to Appeal' 'non Attendance at Hearing' 'dismissal for Default']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Hearing of Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed because the applicant failed to appear at the hearing.' "Whether the applicant's non-attendance amounted to a failure to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence under Order 35A rule 2(1)(f) of the Federal Court Rules." 'Whether provisions concerning dismissal of an appeal for non-attendance applied where no appeal had yet been instituted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing despite having been duly notified of the time and place and having confirmed receipt of notice. That failure amounted to a failure to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence under Order 35A rule 2(1)(f) of the Federal Court Rules, enlivening the Court's power under Order 35A rule 3(1)(a) to dismiss the proceeding. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $1,000.

Orders

  • ['That the application for leave to appeal filed 10 March 2008 be dismissed.' "That the applicant pay the respondent Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $1,000."]