DMM18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1339

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. Before the Court is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) (as it was). The IAA affirmed a decision of a delegate (Delegate) of the first respondent (Minister) refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa.
2. The matter was listed for hearing before me this morning. The parties were notified of this by email sent on 16 June 2025.
3. The applicant is legally represented in this matter. I have confirmed that the listing correspondence was sent to the correct address for service that has been provided in relation to the applicant's lawyer. The matter has been called inside and outside of the courtroom. An attempt by my Associate to contact the applicant's representative by telephone has been unsuccessful. It is now more than half an hour after the start time for the listing and there has been no appearance for the applicant.
4. It is not entirely clear what has happened this morning. However, the non-appearance has occurred in the context of a certain lack of engagement by the applicant in this matter. In particular, no written submissions have been filed on behalf of the applicant in accordance with procedural orders that have been made.
5. It may be that the applicant has terminated his lawyer's instructions. If so, a Notice of Address for Service confirming this ought to have been filed. No Notice of Withdrawal of Lawyer has alternatively been filed in accordance with r 9.03 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (GFL Rules).
6. As I have noted previously, this situation has the potential to create some confusion. Where that confusion results in adjournment of the matter, then this may raise questions regarding costs (and who should pay them) in the event that a hearing is unable to proceed. It would therefore be prudent for any lawyer whose instructions have been withdrawn to provide clarity to the situation through withdrawing in accordance with r 9.03 of the GFL Rules if no notice has been filed by or on behalf of their client(s) in accordance with r 9.01(2) of the GFL Rules: see Saleem v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 98 at [11] (Judge Given).
7. In any event, I am satisfied that the applicant was appropriately notified of the hearing today. In these circumstances, the Minister seeks dismissal of the application pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the GFL rules.
8. I am satisfied that is an appropriate course. If the applicant has not, in fact, withdrawn his lawyer's instructions and elected not to appear, or if some misadventure has caused the applicant's non-appearance today and he wishes to press his case, then it will be open for him to seek reinstatement of the matter pursuant to r 17.05 of the GFL Rules.
9. The Minister also seeks an order that his name be amended to "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship" to reflect a change in name more generally. I will so order.
10. Lastly, the first respondent seeks an order that the applicant pay his costs fixed in the amount of $6,000. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate amount, having regard to the Court's scale and also to the work that has been performed in this matter.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Laing.