BRC25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1886

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. This matter was listed before the Court for a final hearing in the Adelaide Registry at 11.00am ACDT on 17 November 2025. The hearing was to be conducted online via Webex as I am currently sitting in Perth. When the matter commenced today, there was no appearance via Webex by or on behalf of the applicants.
2. In the circumstances, the Court made the following orders:

(1) Parties have leave to appear by video link pursuant to Division 6 of Part 6 in Chapter 4 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).

(2) The application for judicial review be dismissed for non-appearance 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).

(3) The applicants pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $6,200.

1. The following reasons explain why the Court dismissed the matter for non-appearance 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) (the Rules).

1. Before the Court is an application for judicial review filed in the Adelaide Registry of this Court on 14 March 2025 (the application). That application was accompanied by an affidavit which was affirmed by the first applicant on that same date.
2. That application was brought pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). By that application, the applicant sought review of a decision made by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 19 February 2025. In that decision, the Tribunal confirmed its decision dated 15 January 2025 to dismiss the application under s 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).
3. On 3 September 2025, the first applicant attended a callover hearing before a Registrar of this Court. At that callover hearing, the matter was set down for final hearing before me via Webex. The applicants were sent a Notice of Listing following the callover hearing.
4. On 15 November 2025, over the weekend immediately prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicants emailed the Court to say:

We don't want to continue with our court case anymore. We want to discontinue it.

1. On the morning of 17 November 2025, my associate replied to the applicants and indicated that they should still attend the scheduled hearing via Webex, at which time the Court can make orders for the matter to be discontinued.
2. When the matter came before the Court on 17 November 2025, the applicants did not join the Webex link, either by video or telephone. Ms Williams appeared by Webex on behalf of the first respondent (the Minister).
3. Ms Williams advised the Court that she had received correspondence from the applicants indicating that they do not know how to use Webex. Her reply (copied to the Court) noted the Webex link provided by the Court in the Notice of Listing, along with directions as to how to contact the Court for further assistance. My associate made three attempts to contact the applicants by the telephone number provided within their application to the Court, however those attempts were unsuccessful.
4. In those circumstances, counsel for the Minister applied to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Rules. Counsel also sought that the applicants pay the Minister's costs, fixed in the sum of $6,200.
5. Noting the correspondence to the applicants from the Court and from the Minister, the Court is satisfied that the applicants had been properly notified of the hearing date and time, and how to join that hearing. The Court is further satisfied that the applicants did not appear at the final hearing of this matter at the designated time today, and that they do not intend to continue their application.
6. In respect of the costs order sought on behalf of the Minister, the Court was satisfied that the amount sought was appropriate in the circumstances, noting that it is below the scale amount for a proceeding concluded at a final hearing as set out in Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 2 of the Rules. The Minister effectively was required to prepare for a final hearing. The Minister had filed a Court Book and written submissions, and Ms Williams was prepared to make oral submissions today.

1. In the circumstances, the Court made orders to dismiss the matter for non-appearance and award costs to the Minister, as outlined above.
2. The Court notes that the applicants can apply to have their application reinstated pursuant to r 24.04(a) of the Rules, should they decide they wish to continue with their application.

I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gerrard.