CVL24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1085

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

1. This matter was listed before the Court for a directions hearing via Microsoft Teams web conference at 11.00am AWST / 12.30pm ACST on 10 July 2025. When the matter commenced, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant, either online or in person.
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 be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
   3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $4,189.38.
3. These reasons explain why the Court dismissed the matter for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (the Rules).

1. Before the Court is an application for judicial review filed in the Perth Registry of this Court on 15 May 2024 (the application). That application was accompanied by an affidavit which was sworn by the applicant on 14 May 2024.
2. The application was brought pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). By that application, the applicant sought review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 15 April 2024. In that decision, the Tribunal confirmed its earlier decision to dismiss the applicant's application for review. The Tribunal's decision is set out in full as follows (footnotes omitted):

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. The applicant applied for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant them a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. On 27 March 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to s 426A(1A)(b) of the Act.

3. The applicant was sent a written statement that set out that decision and the reasons for it on 27 March 2024.

4. Those documents were sent by email to the last email address provided to the Tribunal in connection with the review. The applicant is taken to have received that material at the end of the day on which they were transmitted, namely 27 March 2024.

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.

6. The date by which the applicant was required to seek reinstatement was 10 April 2024. No request for reinstatement has been received.

7. As the applicant did not apply for reinstatement of the application within the 14-day period, the Tribunal must confirm the decision to dismiss the application.4 In these circumstances, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

1. On 30 October 2024, the applicant appeared via telephone at a callover hearing before Judicial Registrar Cummings. At that callover hearing, the Registrar made orders programming the matter for a summary dismissal hearing on 3 December 2024.
2. On 12 November 2024, the first respondent (the Minister) withdrew their application for summary dismissal and the matter was re-listed for a final hearing on a date to be advised.
3. On 9 January 2025, the parties were sent a listing notice (via email) advising them that the matter had been listed for a final hearing before Judge Kendall at 11.00am on 7 August 2025. On 22 April 2025, the parties were advised (again by email) that the hearing had been re-listed to 11.00am on 3 July 2025.
4. On 30 June 2025, this matter was transferred to my docket and the parties were advised by email that the final hearing scheduled for 3 July 2025 would now proceed as a directions hearing via video conference.
5. When the matter came before the Court on 3 July 2025, the applicant did not appear. Mr Lettenmaier appeared via video as Counsel on behalf of the Minister. My associate made a number of unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant via the telephone number in the footer of his application for judicial review.
6. Given the matter involved a self-represented applicant, the matter was adjourned for a further week to give the applicant another opportunity to appear at the directions hearing. The Minister was also given an opportunity to file an affidavit annexing any correspondence they had had with the applicant in which they had put the applicant on notice that, in the event the applicant failed to appear at the next directions hearing, they would seek an order that the matter be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Rules. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for directions at 11.00am AWST / 12.30pm ACST on 10 July 2025 via Microsoft Teams video conference.
7. On 10 July 2025, the applicant again failed to appear at the directions hearing. Mr Lettenmaier appeared via telephone as Counsel for the Minister. My associate made two unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant via the telephone number recorded in their application for judicial review. The applicant had otherwise not made any contact with the Court.
8. In those circumstances, counsel for the Minister applied to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Rules. Counsel also sought that the applicant pay the Minister's costs of the proceedings, fixed in the sum of $4,189.38.
9. In support of that application, counsel for the Minister sought to rely on the affidavit of Aneesha Satyendra affirmed and filed on 9 July 2025. The material annexed to that affidavit included a letter sent by email to the applicant on 8 July 2025 which demonstrates that the applicant had been put on notice of the directions hearing and that the Minister would seek to have the matter dismissed under r 13.06(1)(c) if the applicant failed to appear on 10 July 2025. The contents of that letter are reproduced as follows:

Dear Applicant

CVL24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) Proceeding No. PEG164/2024

We enclose a sealed copy of the Court orders dated 13 November 2024.

We note that you failed to appear at the directions hearing on 3 July 2025. As a result, this matter is now listed for a further directions hearing via Microsoft Teams on 10 July 2025 at 11.00am (AWST) before Judge Gerrard. Please ensure you have checked the email sent to you from the court on 3 July 2025 which includes details on how to join the hearing.

Please ensure you join the hearing 15 minutes prior to commencement.

A copy of this correspondence from the court is enclosed.

If you do not appear on that occasion. the Minister will apply to have the matter dismissed under rule 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) with costs.

Yours faithfully

MinterEllison

1. Noting the correspondence from the Court and the Minister's lawyers, the Court is satisfied that the applicant had been properly notified of the hearing date and time.
2. In light of the enquiries made, the Court is satisfied that the applicant did not appear at today's directions hearing in this matter.
3. In respect of the costs order sought on behalf of the Minister, the Court is satisfied that the amount sought is appropriate in the circumstances, noting that it is the relevant scale amount for a proceeding concluded after the first court date for the proceeding and at or before an interlocutory hearing as prescribed in Item 2 of Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Rules.
4. In the circumstances, the Court made orders to dismiss the matter for non-appearance and award costs to the Minister, as outlined at [2] above.
5. The Court notes that the applicant can apply to have his application reinstated pursuant to r 17.05(2)(a) of the Rules.

I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gerrard.