BET25 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FedCFamC2G 88

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. As a consequence of the non-appearance of the applicants, of whom there are three - a primary applicant, his wife and his sister - the Minister seeks orders for dismissal for non-appearance, costs and a name change for the Minister.
2. By way of background, and having regard to what appears on the Court file and also in the affidavit of Ms Verma filed on 14 January 2026, the Court notes that the relevant matters, appear to be as follows:

(a) on 24 January 2025 the originating application was filed seeking judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth);

(b) on 17 March 2025 the respondents filed a response to that application, and the first respondent (the Minister) sought that the application be dismissed;

(c) on 5 September 2025 a Registrar of this Court made the usual programming orders in respect of an application for judicial review of a migration decision in this Court, including an order that the matter be listed for final hearing on a date to be advised;

(d) on 19 September 2025 a Court book was filed and an unsealed copy of the Court book was served on the applicants by post;

(e) in late November or early December of 2025, the matter was docketed to the docket of the currently presiding Judge, and on 8 December 2025, a notice of listing was sent to the parties listing the matter for final hearing today, 21 January 2026;

(f) on 9 December 2025 the first applicant wrote requesting a short adjournment of the final hearing to prepare documents and obtain legal advice. The presiding Judge's Associate wrote back to the first applicant indicating that the matter would be brought to the attention of the presiding judge who was then on leave, and the parties would be advised whether the Judge was minded to grant the adjournment, but that the matter remained listed for final hearing on 21 January 2026;

(g) on 10 December 2025 the first applicant was advised that the Court was not minded to grant an adjournment on the basis of the approach the previous day, but if the applicants continued to seek an adjournment of the final hearing, they may file an application in a proceeding supported by an affidavit, and the applicants were provided with a relevant link to the application in a proceeding, and also advised that the Registry could be contacted for further assistance in regard to filing of any application in a proceeding;

(h) on 18 December 2025 the Registry wrote to the applicants reminding the applicants that a setting down fee, which was required to be paid, had not yet been paid;

(i) on 7 January 2026 the Minister filed a written outline of submissions, and those written outline of submissions were served on the applicants by email at the relevant address for service;

(j) on 14 January 2026 a confirmation of listing for 21 January 2026 was forwarded to the parties, including details as to appearance in person in the Registry for today's hearing. On the same day, a further copy of the, this time sealed, Court book, was served on the applicants by the Minister. Later again that same day, the first applicant emailed the Court advising:

I write to advise that I will not be attending the scheduled hearing. I do not intend to pursue the proceeding further.

The Court notes that nothing was said concerning the second and third applicants - the wife and the sister - in relation to their intentions with respect to the hearing, but the Court also notes their claims were entirely dependent upon the success of the claims of the first applicant;

(k) on 15 January 2026 the Associate to the presiding Judge emailed the parties indicating that if the first applicant, and also the second and third applicants, intended to discontinue, they should file a notice of discontinuance, and a copy of the relevant form was attached, together with instructions as to how to file the notice of discontinuance; and

(l) there has since then been no further contact from the first, second or third applicants, and no notice of discontinuance has been filed.

1. The Court finds, in those circumstances, that the applicants are aware of the hearing, they are aware of the hearing date, and they are aware of the necessity to appear in person. As the Court indicated at the outset, the applicants have neither appeared today in Court, nor have they been able to be contacted by telephone.
2. In the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that:

(a) there should be an order for a name change for the Minister so that the name of the first respondent be amended to read "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship";

(b) an order dismissing the application for non-appearance ought to be made 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); and

(c) there ought to be an order for costs in the sum of $6,200 as sought by the Minister, noting that that is an amount below the scale cost for a final hearing which would have proceeded today if the applicants had appeared.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Lucev.