EIV24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 992

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).

(Delivered ex tempore and revised from the transcript)

1. This matter is listed before me today for hearing of the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant him a protection visa. When the matter was called, there was no appearance by or for the applicant. Counsel for the Minister made an oral application for the applicant's application to 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) (GFL Rules).
2. The applicant was notified of the listing for hearing today by way of an email sent from my chambers to the parties on 14 February 2025. That email has been received into evidence and marked as exhibit 1. That email was sent to the applicant at the email address recorded in his application and affidavit, which were both filed on 28 June 2024, and the email address in those documents is the most recent email address for service provided by the applicant to the Court. The listing notice in exhibit 1 clearly set out the time and date for the hearing and advised that the hearing would take place in person. A reminder email was sent to the parties using the same email address for the applicant on 27 May 2025, and that email has been received into evidence and marked as exhibit 2. Both emails from the Court put the applicant on notice that if he failed to appear at the hearing, the application may be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the GFL Rules.
3. There is also before the Court an affidavit of service of Aatika Ismailjee, filed on 29 May 2025. That affidavit annexes an email sent to the applicant by the Minister's lawyer on 22 May 2025. That email also reminded the applicant that the matter was listed for final hearing on 3 June 2025 at 10.00am and put the applicant on notice that if he did not attend the hearing, the Minister would seek orders that the matter be dismissed and that the applicant pay the Minister's costs. I am satisfied that the applicant was properly notified of the listing for hearing and the consequences of failing to appear at the hearing.
4. When the matter was called, there was no appearance by or for the applicant. This was after the Court had deferred commencing the hearing for approximately 15 minutes in case the applicant was simply running late. When there was no appearance by or for the applicant, I had my associate call the matter outside the courtroom three times and there continued to be no appearance by or for the applicant. There is nothing before the Court to suggest that the applicant has any reasonable explanation for his failure to appear at the hearing. In circumstances where the applicant has been properly notified of the hearing and, without any apparent reasonable explanation, has failed to appear at the hearing, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss the application for non-appearance.
5. I note that in circumstances where the Court is making orders to dismiss the application in the absence of the applicant, the applicant may apply to the Court for the orders to be set aside pursuant to r 17.05(2)(a) of the GFL Rules. If the Court were to make such an order, that would have the effect of reinstating the application.
6. The Minister also seeks orders changing his name to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship' and an order that the applicant pay the Minister's costs, fixed in the amount of $6,500. I am satisfied that both of these orders are appropriate. The name change order reflects the current title of the Minister and the quantum of costs sought by the Minister is less than the amount set out in the Court's scale for matters that are concluded at a final hearing.
7. I therefore make the following orders in this matter:
   1. The name of the first respondent is amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.
   2. The application is 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).
   3. The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $6,500.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams.