Vat v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1762

Vat v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1762

The applicant failed to appear on 26 November 1999 and again on 10 December 1999 after being notified of the further directions date and that the Minister would seek dismissal with costs if there was no appearance; accordingly, the application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Order of Review of a Decision of Refugee Review Tribunal Not to Grant Protection Visa / Directions Hearing; Application Dismissed for Non Appearance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'non Appearance at Directions Hearing' 'dismissal of Application' '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

Application for Order of Review of a Decision of Refugee Review Tribunal Not to Grant Protection Visa / Directions Hearing; Application Dismissed for Non Appearance

  1. 1 ['Whether the application should be dismissed where the applicant failed to appear at directions hearings after being notified that dismissal with costs would be sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to appear on 26 November 1999 and again on 10 December 1999 after being notified of the further directions date and that the Minister would seek dismissal with costs if there was no appearance; accordingly, the application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs." 'The respondent inform the applicant of the provisions of O 35, r 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.']