CBX24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1686

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 Perth Registry at 10.00am AWST on 14 October 2025. When the matter commenced, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant, either in person or via Webex.
2. In the circumstances, the Court made the following orders:

(1) The name of the first respondent be amended to read 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.

(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 applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.

1. The following reasons explain why the Court dismissed the matter 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 Perth Registry of this Court on 18 April 2024 (the application). That application was accompanied by an affidavit which was sworn by the applicant on the 17 April 2024.
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 Appeals Tribunal to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.
3. On 29 December 2024, the parties were notified by email that the application for judicial review had been listed for final hearing before Judge Kendall on 4 March 2025.
4. On 24 February 2025, parties were advised that the hearing on 4 March 2025 had been vacated due to a change in judicial availability and re-listed for hearing on 11 August 2025. On 22 April 2025, the matter was again re-listed for hearing on 7 July 2025.
5. On 2 July 2025, parties were again advised that the hearing scheduled for 7 July 2025 had been vacated and would be re-listed in due course.
6. On 15 August 2025, the matter was transferred to the docket of Judge Gerrard and re-listed for final hearing on 14 October 2025 in the Perth Registry of the Court. On each of the above occasions, parties were notified via email of the relevant listing details.
7. When the matter came before the Court on 14 October 2025, the applicant was not present in the courtroom. Ms Ellis appeared as counsel on behalf of the first respondent (the Minister). My associate made three unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant by the telephone number provided within the applicant's application to the Court. My associate then called the applicant's pseudonym three times within the precincts of the courtroom. The applicant failed to appear and otherwise had not made any contact with the Court to explain their non-attendance.
8. 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 applicant pay the Minister's costs, fixed in the sum of $6,500.
9. In support of that application, Ms Ellis sought to rely on the affidavit of Benjamin Mayne affirmed and filed on 8 October 2025. Annexed to that affidavit was correspondence from the Minister to the applicant dated 7 February 2025 which put the applicant on notice that, should he fail to appear at the scheduled hearing, the Minister may seek to have his matter dismissed with costs. Although that correspondence referred to an earlier listing date of 4 March 2025 which was subsequently vacated and re-listed, Ms Ellis submitted that the applicant was appropriately on notice of the consequences of failing to appear at a court hearing.
10. Ms Ellis also sought to rely upon the email from my associate dated 15 August 2025 which advised that the matter had been listed for final hearing on 14 October 2025 and that attendance was required either via Webex or in person at the Perth Registry.
11. Noting the history of this matter and the correspondence from the Court, the Court was satisfied that the applicant had been properly notified of the date and time of today's hearing. In light of the enquiries made, the Court was satisfied that the applicant did not appear at the hearing at the designated time.
12. 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 Ellis 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 applicant can apply to have his application reinstated pursuant to r 24.04(a) of the Rules.

I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gerrard.