DVJ25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 502

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. The matter was listed for an extension of time hearing before the Court at 10:00am AWST on 27 March 2026. When the matter commenced, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant either in person or by telephone.
2. In the circumstances, the Court made the following orders:
   1. The application for an extension of time be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to rule 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
   2. 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 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 an extension of time filed in the Perth Registry of this Court on 1 April 2025 (the application). That application was accompanied by an affidavit which was sworn by the applicant on 26 March 2025.
2. The application was brought pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), seeking review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 7 January 2025. In that decision, the Tribunal confirmed its earlier decision to dismiss the applicant's review application because he had failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. The applicant was notified of the Tribunal's dismissal decision and was advised that he could apply for reinstatement within 28 days. The applicant did not do so and the Tribunal therefore confirmed its decision to dismiss the application.
3. On 6 November 2025, the applicant appeared via telephone at a callover hearing before a Registrar of this Court. At that hearing, the Registrar made orders that the matter be listed for hearing of the extension of time application on a date to be advised.
4. On 12 January 2026, the parties were sent a listing notice (via email) advising that matter had been listed for an extension of time hearing before Judge Gerrard at 10:00am on 27 March 2026. The listing notice indicated that the hearing would be conducted in person at the Perth Registry of this Court.
5. When the matter came before the Court on 27 March 2026, the applicant did not appear. Ms Tyagi appeared on behalf of the first respondent (the Minister).
6. My associate made three unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant via the telephone number provided in the footer of his application. My associate then called the applicant's pseudonym and file number three times within the precincts of the courtroom, and made one more unsuccessful attempt to phone the applicant. The applicant failed to appear and otherwise had not made any further contact with the Court to explain his non-attendance.
7. In the 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 the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $6,200.
8. In support of that application, counsel for the Minister sought to rely on the affidavit of Courtney Catherine Pipa affirmed and filed on 19 March 2026 (taken as read and in evidence), and the email from the Court to the parties on 12 January 2026 which advised the applicant of today's hearing.
9. Noting the correspondence from the Court and the Minister's lawyers, the Court was satisfied that the applicant had been properly notified of the date and time of today's hearing but did not appear at the designated time.
10. In respect of the costs order sought on behalf of the Minister, the Court was satisfied that it was appropriate to make an order for costs in circumstances where the Minister was effectively required to prepare for an extension of time hearing at the which the applicant had failed to appear. The Minister had filed a Court Book and written submissions, and Ms Tyagi was prepared to make oral submissions today. However, the Court declined to fix costs in the amount sought by the Minister, noting that the amount sought was above the scale amount for a proceeding concluded at or before an interlocutory hearing as set out in Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 1 of the Rules. The Court instead made an order for the applicant to pay the Minister's costs fixed in the scale amount of $4,189.38 as provided for by the Rules.

1. Accordingly, the Court made orders to dismiss the matter for non-appearance and award 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 24.04(a) of the Rules.

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