GPY24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1213

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 29 July 2024. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
2. 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). 3. The applicant was notified of the hearing by way of an email sent from my chambers on 17 February 2025. That email 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 and affidavit, both filed on 27 August 2024. The email address is the most recent email address for service provided to the Court for the applicant. Exhibit 1 clearly set out the date and the time for the hearing and advised that the hearing would take place in person. 4. I also have in evidence before me an email chain which has been marked as exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 shows that the applicant wrote to the chambers of another judge of this Court on 10 April 2025 asking if his matter could be moved to Sydney as he had moved to Sydney at the end of February. Exhibit 2 further shows that my associates wrote to the applicant on 24 April 2025 indicating that the hearing could proceed by video link, with any party in Perth at the date of the hearing able to appear in person, and any party who is, or whose representative is, in a different state being able to appear by video link. The applicant responded to this email on 24 April 2025 indicating that he would fly over to attend the hearing and that he had already paid the air ticket to come for the hearing. 5. I also have in evidence an email sent from my chambers to the parties on 21 July 2025. That email has been received into evidence and marked as exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 was also sent to the applicant at the email address contained in his application and affidavit. Exhibit 3 reminded the applicant of the hearing listed today and confirmed that it would proceed in person. Exhibit 1 and exhibit 3 both 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. 6. I also have in evidence an affidavit of service of Alice Esther Dawkins filed on behalf of the Minister on 14 July 2025. That affidavit annexes correspondence sent to the applicant on 14 July 2025, which again reminded him of the hearing today and put him on notice that if he failed to appear at the hearing, orders may be sought that his application be dismissed with costs, without further notice. 7. I am satisfied that the applicant has been properly notified of the hearing today, that he was actually aware of the hearing based on his emails to the Court, and that he was notified of the potential consequences of failing to appear at the hearing. 8. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 10:00am AWST. At that time, my associate advised me that there was no appearance for the applicant, so I deferred the start time of the hearing for 15 minutes just in case the applicant was running late. When the matter was called at 10:15am, there was no appearance by or for the applicant. My associate called the matter outside the courtroom three times to confirm that the applicant was not in attendance. 9. There is nothing that I am aware of on the Court file, or otherwise before the Court, to explain why the applicant has not appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the applicant has failed to appear at the hearing and has no apparent reasonable explanation for this failure. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The Minister also seeks two further orders. The first order sought by the Minister is an order to change his name to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. This reflects the change in the Minister's title since this application was filed, and I am satisfied it is appropriate to make that order. 13. The Minister also seeks an order that the applicant pay his costs fixed in the amount of $5,400. That amount is less than the amount set out in the scale to the GFL Rules, which is often applied in migration hearings that are resolved at a final hearing. Having regard to the work that has been completed by the Minister in this matter, I am satisfied that the quantum of costs sought by the Minister is appropriate.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams.