AOY25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 324

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

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).

(Delivered ex tempore and revised from the transcript)

1. This matter is listed before me today for hearing of the applicant's application for an extension of time to seek judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal affirmed a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. When the matter was called, there was no appearance by or for the applicant. Counsel for the Minister made an oral application for the applicant's application for an extension of time to be dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (GFL Rules).
2. The Minister relies on two documents in support of this application. One document, which has been marked as exhibit 1, is an email sent from my chambers to the applicant on 17 February 2026. This reminds the applicant of the listing for hearing today, with the parties having previously been notified of the listing for hearing in November 2025. Exhibit 1 contains an underlined paragraph putting the applicant on notice that if he fails to appear at the hearing, his application may be dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules. Exhibit 1 was sent to the applicant using the email address that was recorded in his application and an affidavit that he filed with the Court on 10 January 2025. Those documents contain the most recent address for service that the applicant has given to the Court.
3. The second document that the Minister relies on is an affidavit of service of Isabel Margarita Cruz Aroca filed on 13 February 2026. That affidavit annexes correspondence dated 5 February 2026 from the Minister's lawyer to the applicant, and that correspondence reminded the applicant of the hearing date and put him on notice that, if he failed to appear, the Minister would ask for his application to be dismissed with costs.
4. I am satisfied from exhibit 1 and the annexure to the affidavit of Ms Cruz Aroca that the applicant was on notice of the hearing today and of the possible consequences of failing to appear.
5. The hearing was listed to commence at 10:00am AWST. My associate informed me at that time that the applicant was not present in the courtroom, and I deferred calling the matter for approximately 15 minutes. When the matter was called at approximately 10:15am, there was still no appearance by or for the applicant. My associate called the matter outside the courtroom three times to confirm that there was no appearance.
6. There is nothing on the court file or otherwise before the Court to explain why the applicant has not appeared today, and Counsel for the Minister confirmed that the applicant does not appear to have contacted the Minister's lawyers.
7. In circumstances where the applicant has been properly notified of the hearing and, without any reasonable explanation apparent from the court file, has failed to appear at the hearing, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss his application for an extension of time for non-appearance.
8. I note that, in circumstances where the Court is making orders to dismiss the application in the absence of the applicant, the applicant may apply to the Court for the orders to be set aside pursuant to r 24.04(a) of the GFL Rules. If the Court were to make such an order, that would have the effect of reinstating the application.
9. There are two further orders sought by the Minister today. One is an order to change the Minister's name to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. I am satisfied such an order is appropriate, given the current official title of the Minister.
10. The Minister also seeks an order that the applicant pay his costs fixed in the amount of $4,500. I am satisfied that this is appropriate, having regard to the work that the Minister has been required to do to prepare this matter for the hearing of the extension of time application today. I also take into account that the amount of $4,500 is below the amount set out in the scale in the GFL Rules for proceedings that are concluded at or before an interlocutory hearing.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams.