FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CKT15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 100

Appeal from: CKT15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2016] FCCA 3005

File number: NSD 1964 of 2016

Judge: FARRELL J

Date of judgment: 14 February 2017

Catchwords: MIGRATION – appeal from decision of the Federal

Circuit Court of Australia – protection visa – where
appellant did not attend interview with Minister’s delegate
– where appellant did not attend Tribunal hearing – where
appellant failed to appear at hearing of the appeal – appeal
dismissed

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.75(1)(a)

Cases cited: CKT15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2016] FCCA 3005

Date of hearing: 14 February 2017

Registry: New South Wales

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 6

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear

Counsel for the First Mr T Reilly

Respondent:

Solicitor for the First Mills Oakley

Respondent:

Counsel for the Second The second respondent submitted save as to costs
Respondent:
 ORDERS

NSD 1964 of 2016

BETWEEN: CKT15
Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER

PROTECTION
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: FARRELL J
DATE OF ORDER: 14 FEBRUARY 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed pursuant to r 36.75(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for
failure of the appellant to appear when the appeal was called on for hearing.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FARRELL J:

1 On 14 November 2016 the appellant filed a notice of appeal from a decision of the
Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCCA) delivered on 25 October 2016. The primary
judge dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal: see CKT15 v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016]
FCCA 3005. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the Minister’s delegate’s to refuse to grant
the appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa.

2 When the matter came on for hearing today at 10.20 am, the appellant did not appear.
I asked the Minister’s representatives whether the appellant had provided a contact telephone
number. Mr Reilly, counsel for the Minister, indicated that they did have a number. I
adjourned the hearing until 10.30 am and asked that the Minister’s representatives attempt to
contact the appellant with the assistance of the interpreter who had been made available to
assist the Court at the hearing.

3 When the Court resumed at 10.30 am, Mr Reilly advised that an attempt had been
made to contact the appellant, but the telephone rang out without being answered. Mr Reilly
then made an application under r 36.75(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the
appeal be dismissed because of the appellant’s absence.

4 In support of the application, Mr Reilly tendered a copy of a letter dated 7 February

2017 from the solicitors representing the Minister to the appellant at the address set out in the
appellant’s notice of appeal. The letter states that the Minister’s submissions and a copy of a
document which had been Exhibit 2 in the FCCA proceedings are enclosed by way of
service. The letter advises the appellant that the hearing had been set down for today at 10.15
am at the Law Courts Building, Queen Square, Sydney. Mr Reilly noted that Registry had
also corresponded with the appellant by email concerning the time and place for the hearing.

5 Mr Reilly advised that a copy of the Appeal Book sent to the appellant at the same
address had been returned to sender. I note that the same thing occurred in respect of a
scheduled interview with the Minister’s delegate concerning the appellant’s application for a
protection visa. The appellant did not attend that interview or the hearing which the Tribunal
scheduled for 13 October 2015.
 -2-

6 I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the order under r 36.75(1)(a). I will

dismiss the appeal and order that the appellant pay the Minister’s costs as agreed or taxed.

I certify that the preceding six (6)

numbered paragraphs are a true copy
of the Reasons for Judgment herein
of the Honourable Justice Farrell.

Associate:

Dated: 14 February 2017