GLD24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1123

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 on 25 July 2024, affirming a decision not to grant the applicant 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 hearing by way of an email sent from my chambers to the parties on 17 February 2025. That email was tendered by Counsel for the Minister and has been received into evidence and marked as exhibit 1. The email that is exhibit 1 was sent to the applicant at the email address recorded in his application filed on 26 August 2024, which is the most recent email address for service that the applicant has provided to the Court. Exhibit 1 clearly set out the time and date for the hearing and advised that the hearing would take place in person. Exhibit 1 put the applicant on notice that if he failed to appear at the hearing, the application may be dismissed pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the GFL Rules.
3. The Court also has in evidence an affidavit of service of Aatika Ismailjee filed on 8 July 2025. That affidavit annexes correspondence sent by the Minister's lawyer to the applicant via email on 24 June 2025. The email address used in that correspondence is the same email address recorded in the applicant's application for judicial review. The correspondence from the Minister's lawyer again reminds the applicant of the hearing today, confirms that he is required to attend Court on this occasion, and indicates that if he does not attend Court, the Minister will seek orders from the Court that his matter be dismissed and that he pay the Minister's legal costs of the proceeding.
4. I am satisfied that the applicant was properly notified of the hearing listed today and was notified of the potential consequences of failing to appear at the hearing.
5. The scheduled start time for the hearing was 10 am. When my associate advised me at that time that there was no appearance for the applicant, I deferred the start of the hearing for 15 minutes, just in case the applicant was running late. When the matter was called, there was no appearance by or for the applicant. There is nothing before the Court to indicate that the applicant has contacted the Court to explain why he is not here, and there is nothing before me to suggest that the applicant has any reasonable explanation for failing to attend the hearing today.
6. 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.
7. 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 made today 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 applicant's judicial review application.
8. The Minister seeks two further orders today. The first is an order to change the name of the Minister to reflect the Minister's current title, and I am satisfied this is appropriate.
9. The Minister also seeks an order that the applicant pay his costs, fixed in the amount of $6,500. This amount is less than the amount set out in this Court's scale for matters resolved at a final hearing, and I am satisfied that it is an accurate reflection of the costs that the Minister would have incurred in this matter. It is therefore appropriate to make the costs order sought by the Minister.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams.