SZTGF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1359

SZTGF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1359

Given the appellant's absence when the appeal was called on for hearing, and in light of evidence that he was no longer in Australia and did not hold a visa permitting re-entry, the appropriate course was to dismiss the appeal under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) and order that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Judicial Review Application Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa / Appeal Hearing; Application to Dismiss for Appellant's Absence
Outcome
Application dismissed; appellant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['protection (class Xa) Visa' 'judicial Review' 'appeal Dismissal for Non Appearance' 'costs']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'migration Law' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['protection (class Xa) Visa' 'judicial Review' 'appeal Dismissal for Non Appearance' '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

Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Judicial Review Application Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa / Appeal Hearing; Application to Dismiss for Appellant's Absence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal should be dismissed under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because the appellant was absent when the appeal was called on for hearing.' "Whether the appellant should pay the first respondent's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Given the appellant's absence when the appeal was called on for hearing, and in light of evidence that he was no longer in Australia and did not hold a visa permitting re-entry, the appropriate course was to dismiss the appeal under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) and order that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; appellant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed."]