AEP24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 344

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. Before the court is an application for a review of a Registrar's decision to dismiss the applicant's application for reinstatement dated 30 October 2025.

1. On 19 July 2018, the applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, applied for a protection visa.[1] In that application, the applicant provided a mobile phone number and an email address as his contact details and relevantly agreed that the Department would communicate with him by email at his nominated email address.[2]
2. In his application, the applicant also indicated that he could speak, read and write in English.[3] The applicant also advised that he had arrived in Australia on 18 April 2016 on a Visitor visa.[4] In relation to the basis of his claim for protection, the applicant stated that he feared harm from money lenders to whom he was indebted. He claimed that as a result of not being able to repay his debt, the money lenders had harmed his sibling and close family.[5] The applicant also said that there are lots of job opportunities in Australia so he can save money to clear his debts. The applicant also claimed that if he returns to Malaysia, the money lender will continue to use violence.[6]
3. By letter dated 12 September 2018, the applicant was advised that his application for a protection visa was declined by a delegate of the Minister.[7]
4. The following day, on 13 September 2018, the applicant filed a review of the delegate's decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In that application, the applicant provided the same email address and mobile phone number as he had previously provided. Receipt of the application was acknowledged by letter dated 14 September 2018 from the Tribunal. Relevantly, in that letter which was sent by email to the applicant's nominated email address, the Tribunal advised the applicant:[8]

It is important that you:

• tell us immediately if you change your contact details (such as your residential address, mailing address, telephone number, fax number or email address). ...

1. By email dated 26 July 2023, the applicant was advised that his file was being prepared to be given to a Tribunal Member. The applicant was requested to complete a pre-hearing information form.[9]
2. By letter dated 31 October 2023, the applicant was invited to attend a hearing scheduled for 29 November 2023.[10] That letter was sent to the applicant's nominated email address. Relevantly, that letter contained, among other things, the following:

What will happen if you don't appear

If you do not appear at the scheduled hearing, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action or allow or enable you to appear before us or may dismiss your application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before us. ...

...

A dismissed case can be reinstated if the Member considers it appropriate to do so and the application is made within 14 days of receiving notice of the dismissal. If the Member confirms the dismissal, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.

1. The case notes at Court Book page 122 records that on 22 November 2023 at 11:02 am, an SMS hearing reminder was sent to the applicant at his nominated mobile phone in the following terms:

Reminder - your AAT hearing is on 29/11/23. Please check the hearing invitation to confirm details. If you have not replied to your hearing invitation, please do so immediately. Please do not reply to this number. Any questions, call 1800 228 333.

1. The case notes also record that a further reminder in the same terms was sent to the applicant's mobile on 28 November 2023.
2. The applicant did not attend the scheduled hearing on 29 November 2023.
3. By letter dated 1 December 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, again by email to his nominated email address in the following terms:

...

On 31 October 2023 we sent a letter inviting you to attend a hearing on 29 November 2023 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in your case.

As you failed to attend the scheduled hearing, we have decided to dismiss your application for review.

A copy of our statement of decision to dismiss the application is attached along with an information sheet about dismissal of applications.

You may apply to us, in writing, for reinstatement of the application by 15 December 2023. In a reinstatement application you should set out why you failed to appear at the hearing and provide any other information you want the Tribunal to take into consideration when deciding whether your reinstatement application should be granted.

1. The Tribunal's decision record, notes that the non-appearance decision was made on 29 November 2023.
2. The applicant then sent an email to the Tribunal which contains the following information:[11]

Sent: Friday, 15 December 2023 23:23 PM (AWST)

Saturday, 16 December 2023 0:53 AM (ACST); 1:23 AM (AEST); 1:53 AM (ACDT); 2:23AM (AEDT)

...

Subject: 1826821 AAT Pre Hearing

Attachments: Pre-hearing-information-form-Protection - ...

Hi, I am .... I am a 58 years old man, honestly I am not very good with the internet and multimedia. I received a message about my hearing but I do not know my case number and my details with AAT. I use translation to translate for me. Herewith attached my details as requested by AAT.

1. Attached is then the Pre-Hearing information form which appears to be the form provided to the applicant in July 2023. In that form, the applicant, for the first time, provides a different email address, although he does not explain how he was able to access the form which had been sent to his earlier email address. But in any event, the mobile number provided by the applicant in this form is the same mobile number that the applicant had provided in its initial protection visa application and in his Tribunal application.
2. In that form, the applicant also stated:[12]

I just read the message that I need to attent (sic) to hearing from AAT. I do not have access from my previous email. I also do not have enough money to travel because currently I not working and I stay with my relative friend house.

Here is my new email address .... I do not know how to update online. I am 58 years old man. I slow with the internet.

1. Relevantly, I note that this document appears to have been signed by the applicant and is dated 16 December 2023.
2. On 19 December 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that the Tribunal had confirmed its earlier decision to dismiss his protection visa application ('Confirmation Decision'). In its decision record, the Tribunal set out the following reasons:

...

1. On 29 November 2023 the Tribunal dismissed the application under s 426A(1A)(b) of the Act as the applicant did not appear before it to give evidence and present arguments at the time and date of the scheduled hearing.

2. The applicant was notified of the dismissal decision and given a copy of a written statement setting out the decision and the reasons for the decision, in accordance with s 426B(5). The applicant was advised that reinstatement of the application could be sought within 14 days of receiving the dismissal statement and that a failure to apply for reinstatement within the 14 day period would result in confirmation of the dismissal decision.

3. As the applicant did not apply for reinstatement of the application within the 14 days period, the Tribunal must confirm the decision to dismiss the application. In these circumstances the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.

...

1. On 16 January 2024, the applicant filed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in this court.
2. The case notes at Court Book page 122 record that a call was received from the applicant on 12 January 2024 in which:

Applicant wanted copy of final decision - initially he said he wanted it sent to a new email address.

When I said he needed to make a FOI request for the document, he said he had tried to go online to make/send FOI request but due to some issue meant it was not successful. I suggested he try to do the FOI request again, if possible with the assistance if required.

He said he would try again to go online and make the FOI request and the call ended.

1. On 12 January 2024, the applicant also sent further correspondence to the Tribunal seeking a second hearing.[13] Also on 12 January 2024, the applicant sent a further email to the Tribunal requesting access to decision records.[14] Relevantly he said:

I am losing my old email access and urgently need a decision records that has been by AAT on 18th December 2023. I try to do FOI by online and filling the form but it not showing any results refer the attachment.

I request the Tribunal do second hearing or send me the documents of decision record.

1. On 12 January 2024, the Tribunal responded to the applicant. After setting out the background to this matter, the Tribunal further stated:

On 1 December 2023, the Tribunal sent a letter advising you that the proceeding had been dismissed. It also advised that you may apply in writing to have the proceeding reinstated by 15 December 2023.

No application to have the proceeding reinstated was received by the Tribunal. Accordingly, a Confirmation of Dismissal was made on 18 December 2023. As such the proceeding has now been finalised and the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to the matter.

1. On 15 January 2024, the applicant sent a further email to the Tribunal headed:

REINSTATEMENT OF THE APPLICATION CASE NUMBER 1826821

1. In that email the applicant said:
   1. I verily state that at the time when I received and noticed the Tribunal email on 12 January 2024, I was stay at my friend house which do not have any access to internet or electronic devices that would enable me to log into my email address or check for any new incoming emails.
   2. I further state that between 19th October to 31 December 2023, I was constantly travelling to seek for job opportunities for my livelihood and upon securing a job, I do not have any access to the internet nor electronic devices.
   3. I was only able to have access to internet and electronic devices when I met with my friends and requested to use their computer to log in my email and check for any new incoming emails.
   4. At that material time, I noticed that the Tribunal had sent the said email containing the Decision Records of my review application where the Tribunal had dismissed the application.
   5. Upon requesting my friend to read, translate and explain to me the contents of the said decision, I was shocked when I was informed that a natural justice letter was sent by the Tribunal via letter dated 12 January 2024.
   6. I verily state that, I do not have any knowledge of the said natural justice letter and the request for reply by the Tribunal and I do not receive the said letter.
   7. Therefore, I file this present application to seek for leave from this Honourable Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT for an reinstatement of the application and extension of time to file the evidence to against the Department of Home Affairs.
   8. I verily state that based on the above-mentioned averments, the delay was not intentional whereby I was only able to access the internet and log in my email on 31 October 2023.
   9. I further verily state that the said delay does not prejudice the respondent whereby I would be more prejudiced for unable to pursue with my appeal against the decision of the Respondent.
   10. I verily affirm that I have meritable appeal and thus should be given the opportunity to be heard by this Honourable Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
   11. Based on the above, I humbly pray this Honourable Administrative Appeals Tribunal to allow this application as prayed herein.
2. By letter dated 15 January 2024, the Tribunal responded again confirming that as the applicant's reinstatement application had not been received within 14 days of the date of the initial dismissal decision, the Tribunal made the Confirmation of Dismissal decision on 18 December 2023.[15] As such, the Tribunal advised the applicant that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter any further and directed the applicant to the process available to him before this court.

1. The applicant then filed his application in this court on 16 January 2024 in which he relevantly sought orders quashing the decision of the Tribunal, and an order directing the Tribunal to consider his application according to law.
2. Under the heading Grounds of application, the applicant stated as follows:
   1. There has been a breach of the rules of natural justice in the making of the decision.
   2. Procedures that should have been observed in making the decision were not observed.

3. The decision was not authorised by the Act under which it was made.

1. The decision involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision.

5. There is no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision.

6. The decision was otherwise contrary to law.

1. On 25 July 2025, the parties were notified by email that the matter was to be listed for a call over before Judicial Registrar Foster on 8 August 2025. A copy of that email is annexed to the affidavit of Sophia Alice Griffiths-Mark filed on 15 October 2025 at Annexure 'SGM-1'.
2. The first respondent's lawyers then again wrote to the applicant by email on 6 August 2025 reminding the applicant of the call over. In that email, the first respondent's lawyers said:[16]

If you do not appear at the callover, the Minister will seek to have your application dismissed, with costs.

If you do not understand any of the above or below, you may wish to seek legal advice.

1. On 7 August 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of address for Service in which he updated his home address and email address. The email address in the Notice of Address for Service was the email to which the correspondence of 25 July 2025 from the court and the email of 6 August 2025 from the Minister's representative set out above, was sent.
2. On 8 August 2025, the applicant did not appear at the call over and orders were made by Registrar Foster which included the following ('Dismissal Decision'):
   1. The application for judicial review be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021.
   2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding fixed in the sum of $4,189.38.
3. Rule 17.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (as in force at the relevant time) provided that the applicant could seek to have the orders set aside, having been made in his absence. By letter dated 18 August 2025, the first respondent's representative wrote to the applicant advising him of the orders made and of his right to seek to have the orders set aside. Relevantly, that letter also contained the following:

If you wish to make a reinstatement application, you must satisfy the Court that:

• you have a reasonable excuse for your failure to attend Court on 8 August 2025; and
• your application for review of the Administrative Review Tribunal's decision has reasonable prospects of success.

1. On 19 August 2025, the applicant filed an application in a proceeding. The applicant did not include any substantive details in that application. However, in the affidavit in support of that application, also filed on 18 August 2025, the applicant said:
   1. I not good in English, I wait for the call over, I think court will call me, But I misunderstood, I call back the court they say I already late.

2. Please give me one more chance to I fight back my case thank you.

1. Annexed to the applicant's affidavit was a copy of the orders made by Registrar Foster dated 8 August 2025, including an order that the applicant's application for judicial review was dismissed for non-appearance.
2. The applicant's application dated 19 August 2025 was treated as an application for reinstatement and on 18 September 2025, a hearing was conducted before a Registrar of this court in respect of that application. The applicant appeared by telephone and orders were made, including for the applicant to file and serve any draft amended application for judicial review, written submissions in support of the reinstatement application and any further affidavit evidence in support of the reinstatement. That material was to be filed by 2 October 2025.
3. The applicant did not file any amended application. On 6 October 2025, the applicant filed a further affidavit, which is said to have been sworn on 2 October 2025. In that affidavit, he stated:

...

3. I already do my Submission and I will attach all my submission at this file.

4. Please I want do this hearing because my live in danger if I back my country.

1. Annexed to his affidavit filed 6 October 2025, is a document headed 'Written Submissions' The applicant then relevantly, went on to say:

1.1 Your honour, my name is ... I'm from Malaysia

1.2 I arrived in Melbourne on the 18/04/2016 and I applied for a Protection Visa on 19/07/2018.

...

2.2 A Bridging Visa was granted on the 10/08/2018.

2.3 My Protection Visa application was refused on 12/09/2018.

...

3.1 I have appealed to the AAT for the refusal of my Protection Visa application by Immi.

4.0 Gist of my reason for applying for a Protection Visa

4.1 IF I RETURN TO MALAYSIA THE GENSTER OF MONEY LENDER WILL CONTINUE TO USE VIOLENCE AS THEY DID OT ME AND FAMILY MEMBERS BEFORE.

5.1 The Protection Visa Decision Record is attached to this Written Submission.

1. On 30 October 2025, the applicant's reinstatement application was dismissed by a Registrar of this court and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs in a fixed amount.
2. On 25 November 2025, the applicant filed an Application for Review of the Registrar's decision.
3. In the review application, the applicant, who was not legally represented, states:
   1. On 19 November 2025, the Registrar refused to accept my document for filing. I respectfully request that this decision be reviewed.
   2. I say that the refusal was incorrect because I am attempting to challenge the decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal, and my documents were genuine attempts to properly file my application.
   3. I believe the Tribunal failed to observe a required statutory obligation and did not properly consider the legal and factual matters in my case.
   4. I therefore request that the Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to accept my document for filing so that my matter can be properly reviewed.

1. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

(a) whether the applicant's application filed on 25 November 2025 was filed within time, and if not whether the requirement that it be so filed be dispensed with?

(b) if so, should the court set aside orders 3 and 4 of the orders made by Registrar Foster on 8 August 2025?

Was the review application filed within the specified time?

1. Before turning to consider the application for review, I note that at the hearing before me, counsel for the Minister noted that the review application itself was filed out of time and therefore technically, the applicant required leave to proceed with his review application.
2. As stated, the Registrar's decision was made on 30 October 2025 and according to the court record, the application to review that decision was lodged with the court on 25 November 2025.
3. Rule 3.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 ('Rules') provides that a party may apply to the Court under subsection 256(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) for review of the exercise of a power of the Court by a Registrar and rule 3.06 further provides that any such application for review must be made within 21 days of the day on which the power is exercised.
4. The 21-day time limit for filing such a review therefore expired on 20 November 2025. Although the application for review was dated 14 November 2025, as stated, the court record indicates that the review application was lodged on 25 November 2025 and was not accepted for filing until 3 December 2025.
5. It appears from the content of the applicant's reinstatement application that the applicant attempted to file a document with the Registry on 19 November 2025, which was not accepted for filing. The applicant did not, in oral submissions before me, clarify what this referred to. Notwithstanding this, I understand from the applicant's application that he attempted to file a document in these proceedings on 19 November 2025. I find that this is more likely than not, the review application. Had he been able to file his application on that date, that would have been within the time frame prescribed by the rules for a review application.
6. Whilst the rules that apply to a review of a Registrar's decision do not expressly deal with an extension of time application, the Rules do permit the court a broad discretion to make any order that the court considers appropriate in the interests of justice. In particular, the court may dispense with compliance with the rules at any time.
7. In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice for the applicant's application for a review of the Registrar's decision to be considered and for compliance with the time frame in rule 3.06 for the filing of that application to be dispensed with and I so order.

1. Pursuant to rule 3.08(1), a review of a Registrar's decision proceeds by way of a hearing de novo. I must therefore consider afresh whether the applicant's application for reinstatement which he filed on 19 August 2025, ought to be granted.
2. The Minister submits that the applicant's application for reinstatement ought to be dismissed with costs. The basis of this submission is that the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to attend the hearing on 8 August 2025 and that the applicant has no real prospects of success in his substantive application.
3. For the following reasons, I accept the Minister's submissions and dismiss the applicant's application for reinstatement with costs.
4. Without in any way being critical of the applicant who was not legally represented before me, I note that the applicant did not address me on the legal principles that apply to determine whether to set aside the August 2025 orders. In oral submissions, the applicant, who was assisted by an interpreter said:[17]

In terms of fail to appear, I want to say that because this whole process was not operated by myself, I was listening to my friends' suggestions, and ... I didn't know about it, the fail to appear was not deliberate. I was listening to someone else who is handling my visa application.

1. As noted by the Minister, the principles which apply to the exercise of the discretion to reinstate are well settled. They generally require consideration and weighing of the following factors:
   • whether there is a reasonable excuse for the party's non attendance at the hearing;
   • any prejudice to the other party from the reinstatement;
   • whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on the substantive application.

1. In this case, the applicant gave evidence that he was waiting for the callover, that he thought the court would call him but he misunderstood. The applicant says that when he called the court he was told he was 'already late'. As I understand his submissions, he does not say that he did not receive notification of the hearing on 8 August 2025.
2. In any event, it is apparent from the history of this matter, as the Tribunal set out in some detail above, that the applicant's active participation in these proceedings has been an issue for some time. Indeed, the applicant's application before the Tribunal was disposed of summarily on the basis that not only did he fail to appear at the hearing scheduled before the Tribunal, but that he also did not seek to have his application reinstated in a timely manner.
3. The applicant was clearly on notice as a result of what had happened before the Tribunal of the need to ensure that he was monitoring his emails for notification of any upcoming hearing dates and that he take such steps as necessary to ensure that he follow instructions to participate in hearings.
4. Moreover, it is apparent from the material before the court that the notice of hearing, together with various reminder letters from the Minister's representative were sent to the very email address that the applicant had nominated as his email address in his Notice of Address for service lodged by him in these proceedings on 7 August 2025.
5. I accept that the applicant does not speak fluent English and that he would need to have the correspondence from the court about the listing of the matter translated. However, this is an inevitable consequence of seeking to enforce a right in a jurisdiction in which English is the official language.
6. It is apparent from the applicant's various applications that he is able to obtain assistance in the English language when required.
7. In any event, even if I were to accept that the applicant was confused about how to join the callover on 8 August 2024, and therefore had a reasonable excuse for the delay, I give significant weight in the consideration of this matter to the conclusions I have reached below about the applicant's prospects of success in his substantive application.

1. The Minister rightly, with respect, accepts that the application for reinstatement was made promptly and that no prejudice would be suffered by an order for reinstatement that could not be cured by an order for costs.
2. The Minister also appropriately concedes that the applicant filed his application for reinstatement within a very short time frame after the dismissal orders were made.
3. The absence of any prejudice to the Minister and the relatively short delay in filing, are factors which weigh in favour of the granting of the applicant's application.

1. For the following reasons, I find that the applicant does not have reasonable prospects of success and therefore it is not in the interests of the administration of justice for the orders of 8 August 2025 to be set aside.
2. In his substantive application, the applicant raises the following grounds of review:
   1. There has been a breach of the rules of natural justice in the making of the decision.
   2. Procedures that should have been observed in making the decision were not observed.
   3. The decision involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision.

4. There is no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision.

5. The decision was otherwise contrary to law.

1. In CAL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1344 ('CAL15'), Mortimer J (as her Honour then was) said:
   1. The threshold is whether a ground of review is 'arguable'. That means it is not fanciful, illogical, impermissible or devoid of merit, but has a level of rationality and a basis in the material before the Court sufficient for the Court to be satisfied it is appropriate to hear full argument, with the parties having a fair opportunity to prepare for such argument. Thus, at the level of assessing whether a ground is 'arguable' the Court should not expect a ground of judicial review to be fully developed, especially by an unrepresented asylum seeker whose first language is not English.
2. I will address each of the grounds of review in turn. In doing so I am mindful that the court should not expect the grounds of review to be 'fully developed, especially by an unrepresented asylum seeker whose first language is not English'.

1. Grounds 1 and 2 suggest that there was a breach of the rules of natural justice and/or a breach of procedures in making the decision. The applicant does not particularise either of these grounds.
2. But in any event, a fair reading of both the Dismissal Decision and the Confirmation Decision do not disclose any such breach. The applicant was given notice of the hearing which was to occur on 29 November 2023. That invitation was sent to the applicant's nominated email address and it gave him more than the prescribed 14 days' notice. Moreover, the invitation, by its terms put the applicant on notice that if he did not attend the hearing the Tribunal may, among other things, dismiss his application without further consideration.
3. The deemed receipt provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), deem the applicant to have received the invitation to attend the hearing at the end of the day on which it was emailed to him.
4. In circumstances where the applicant was put on notice of the hearing time and date, was invited to attend, and was put on notice of the consequences of failing to attend, there is no proper basis upon which it can be said that there has been a denial of procedural fairness or a breach of process.
5. Neither of these grounds have a reasonable prospect of success.

1. As to grounds 3 and 5, both assert that there was an error of law or that the decision was contrary to law. Similarly, neither of these grounds are particularised.
2. Again, in circumstances where the applicant was invited to attend a hearing and did not do so, it was open to the Tribunal to dismiss the application. No error of law is evident in the Tribunal's actions in this regard. Moreover, the applicant was then notified of the Dismissal Decision and advised of his right to seek a reinstatement within 14 days. In circumstances where the applicant did not seek a reinstatement within that time frame, the Tribunal was required by section 368C(5) to confirm the Dismissal Decision.
3. It is apparent from the summary of this matter that the applicant did not seek a reinstatement of his application before the Tribunal until his email of 15 January 2024, well outside the 14-day time limit. That application is clearly an application for the reinstatement of his Tribunal application. First it is headed 'Reinstatement of the Application Case number ...'. Secondly, the content of that document seeks to explain the reason for his non-appearance and seeks to persuade the Tribunal to reinstate his application.
4. As a model litigant and notwithstanding that it was not a matter specifically raised by the applicant, the Minister pointed out that it might be argued that the correspondence from the applicant sent on 15 December 2023 might be properly construed as an application for reinstatement. If that were the case, then the issue arises as to whether that correspondence was received by the Tribunal within the 14-day time frame.
5. The Minister made submissions as to why that correspondence ought not be considered to have been received within 14 days of the Dismissal Notice. It is not necessary for me to make any findings in relation to those arguments in circumstances where I find that the applicant's letter of 15 December 2023 is not a request for the reinstatement of his application. First, it does not expressly refer to the Dismissal Notice. Moreover, it appears to be a response to the Tribunal's earlier correspondence advising the applicant that his matter would be referred to a member and inviting him to complete the pre-hearing information form.
6. Under cover of his email of 15 December 2023, the applicant completed the Pre Hearing form and returned it. In addition, in that covering email, he simply attaches his details as requested. There is nothing in the email of 15 December 2023 which suggests that the applicant was seeking to have his review application reinstated.
7. Finally, the email which the applicant subsequently sent on 15 January 2024 which clearly is a reinstatement application, makes no reference to his earlier email of 15 December 2023. Had he intended the 15 December email to be a reinstatement application, one would reasonably expect that he would expressly refer to it as such in his actual reinstatement application.
8. In considering this matter, I have had regard to the caution issued by Justice Mortimer (as she then was) in CAL15. I am not satisfied that the proper characterisation of the 15 December 2023 email is that it was an application for reinstatement such that there may be a reasonable prospect of success of the applicant's grounds of review.
9. I find that the applicant did not make an application for reinstatement until the 14-day time limit had well passed. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was required to confirm the Dismissal Decision and no error of law arises.
10. Finally, by ground 4 the applicant says that there is no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision. As is apparent from the discussion above, this ground has no reasonable prospects of success. The evidence indicates that the applicant was invited to attend the hearing before the Tribunal by email to his nominated email address, he did not attend and it was therefore open to the Tribunal to dismiss his application without further consideration. Moreover, in circumstances where he was advised of the Dismissal Decision and failed to seek reinstatement within the statutory 14 day period, the Tribunal was required to confirm that decision. There is a proper basis for the decisions made by the Tribunal.
11. For each of these reasons, I find that the applicant does not have reasonable prospects of success.
12. Having regard to all of these factors, I therefore find that it is not appropriate to set aside the orders made by Registrar Foster.
13. The Minister submits that if successful, a costs order ought be made against the applicant in the sum of $1,800 which is below the scale amount for an interlocutory hearing. In circumstances where for the reasons set out earlier, the Minister has been successful in resisting this application, costs ought to follow the event. And in those circumstances, I find that an order for the applicant to pay the Minister costs in the sum of $1,800 ought be made.

(1) The time for compliance with the time frame in rule 3.06 of the Rules for the filing of the applicant's application for review of a registrar's decision be dispensed with.

(2) The Orders made by Registrar Foster on 30 October 2025 remain in full force and effect.

(3) The applicant's application for review filed 25 November 2025 be dismissed.

(4) The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1,800.

I certify that the preceding eighty-six (86) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Deputy Chief Judge Mercuri.

[16] Affidavit of Sophia Alice Griffiths-Mark filed on 15 October 2025, Annexure 'SGM-1'.