DEZ25 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 446

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 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 for a final hearing (by video link) before the Court at 3.00pm (AEDT) / 12.00pm (AWST) on 25 March 2025. When the matter was called, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant.
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) (the "Act").
   2. The name of the first respondent be amended to read "Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs".
   3. The "Administrative Review Tribunal" be substituted as the second respondent in the proceeding.
   4. The application be dismissed 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").
   5. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $7,467.
   6. Written reasons for judgment to be published from Chambers at a later date.
   7. The applicant be assigned a pseudonym.
   8. This proceeding be assigned a new proceeding number and any further documents be filed using the new proceeding number.
   9. Written reasons for judgment (referred to in order 6 above) be published using the applicant's pseudonym and the new proceeding number.
   10. The publication or disclosure of the applicant's name and the original proceeding number of this proceeding, other than to the parties and the Court, be prohibited pursuant to s 230(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that this order is necessary to protect the identity of the applicant.
   11. Documents in the proceeding which display the applicant's name and the original proceeding number are confidential for the purposes of r 2.11 of the Rules.
3. These reasons for judgment are those referred to in order 6 above. They 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 which was filed in the Melbourne Registry of the then Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 17 May 2019 (the "application"). The application was accompanied by an affidavit which was sworn by the applicant on 20 May 2019. The Court notes that those documents were filed in the applicant's name and under an alternate proceeding number. For reasons that will be discussed further below, the Court determined that it was appropriate to have the applicant assigned a pseudonym and to assign a new proceeding number to the matter. This judgment references those new matter details.
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 then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the "Tribunal") on 15 April 2019. In that decision, the Tribunal affirmed a decision made by a delegate of the first respondent (the "Minister") refusing to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa.
3. On 13 October 2021, orders were made by Registrar van der Westhuizen of this Court programming the matter to a "final hearing on a date to be advised".
4. On 8 January 2025, my chambers sent a listing notice to the parties (by email) advising them that the matter had been listed for a final hearing before this Court (by video link) on 25 March 2025 at 3.00pm (AEDT) / 12.00pm (AWST).
5. On 21 March 2025, the parties were reminded by my chambers of the date and time of the hearing. They were also given instructions about how they could attend that hearing by video link (using Microsoft Teams).
6. As outlined above, when the matter came before this Court (on 25 March 2025), there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant.
7. Mr Jared Mintz ("Mr Mintz") from Clayton Utz appeared at the hearing (by video link) on behalf of the Minister.
8. The Court confirmed that it had before it the correspondence from my chambers to the parties (referenced above). That correspondence was tendered (together) and referenced as Exhibit 1.
9. The Court also confirmed that it had before it correspondence from Mr Mintz to my chambers (received on 25 March 2025) with various attachments. The material attached to that correspondence confirmed service of various documents on the applicant. That correspondence was tendered (together) and referenced as Exhibit 2.
10. The Court asked Mr Mintz how the Minister wished to proceed.
11. Mr Mintz advised the Court that the Minister sought to have the matter dismissed on the basis of the applicant's non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Rules. Mr Mintz also sought the Minister's costs, fixed in the sum of $7,467.
12. Noting the correspondence contained in Exhibits 1 and 2, the Court was satisfied that the applicant had been properly notified of the hearing date and time. He was also advised of how he could appear at that hearing by video link (using Microsoft Teams).
13. In relation to the costs order sought on behalf of the Minister, the Court determined that the amount sought was appropriate in the circumstances. The Minister's written submissions were exceptional (and quite detailed) and Mr Mintz was prepared to make oral submissions as required by the Court.
14. As outlined above, the Court arranged to have a pseudonym assigned to the applicant in this matter. The Court also arranged for the proceeding to be issued a new proceeding number. The Court did so due to the sensitive nature of some of the issues addressed in the Tribunal's decision in this case. The Court considered it necessary to anonymise the applicant and restrict access to any documentation identifying the applicant and, as such, made orders seven to eleven (as outlined above).

1. In the circumstances, the Court made orders to dismiss the application for non-appearance and awarded costs to the Minister, as outlined at [2] above.
2. 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 Kendall.