HXF24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 260

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).

(Delivered ex tempore and revised from the transcript)

1. This is an application for judicial review[1] of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal[2] made under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
2. The applicants have not appeared today. They have not joined the video link, in accordance with instructions which have been sent to them by the Court. My Associates have endeavoured to contact the applicants on two telephone numbers, calling each of those numbers three times without success.
3. In those circumstances, Ms Hibberd, who appears for the Minister, seeks orders:

(a) for dismissal 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);[3] and

(b) for costs and disbursements in the sum of $5,600.00.

(a) the Judicial Review Application was filed on 4 October 2024, together with an affidavit annexing a copy of the Tribunal Decision.

(b) on 27 June 2025 the Minister filed a response seeking that the Judicial Review Application be dismissed on the basis that no jurisdictional error was evident in the Tribunal Decision;

(c) a Court Book was filed on 19 November 2025, and the applicant was provided with both an electronic copy of the Court Book by email and a hard copy of the Court Book by prepaid post, as deposed to in the affidavit of Mr Patrick Graeme Richards of 16 February 2026;[4]

(d) on 4 September 2025 a Registrar of the Court made the usual orders made by a Registrar at a first appearance in migration judicial review matters,[5] including an order that the matter be listed for final hearing on a date to be fixed;

(e) in November 2025 the matter was docketed to the presently presiding Judge;

(f) on 11 November 2025 a notice of listing was sent to the parties by the Court indicating that a video link hearing would be held today, 17 February 2026, and that if there was no appearance by the applicants, the matter might be dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules;

(g) on 3 February 2026 the Minister filed a written outline of submissions in accordance with the Registrar's Orders of 4 September 2025, and those submissions were served on the applicants by email, according to the Richards Affidavit, and that affidavit also indicates that the applicants were reminded of the hearing date, both then and more recently; and

(h) a confirmation of the listing for today was forwarded to the parties by the presiding Judge's Associates, by email on 10 February 2026.

(a) the applicants have not filed an outline of submissions, as they were entitled to do, pursuant to the Registrar's Orders of 4 September 2025;

(b) there has been no contact of any kind by the applicants, with either the Registry or Chambers in relation to the matter; and

(c) the Court is satisfied that the documents which have been referred to and either sent to or served upon the applicants have been sent to the email address and also the physical address notified as relevant addresses for service in this matter.

1. As the Court has already observed, when the matter was called today, there was no appearance by video link by the applicants, and the presiding Judge has been advised by his Associates, that endeavours to contact the applicants by calling on the telephone numbers listed in the originating application have been unsuccessful.

1. In the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that there is no appearance by the applicants and it is appropriate to exercise the discretion under r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules, to dismiss the matter for non-appearance together with costs, and the Court notes that the Minister seeks costs and disbursements in the sum of $5,600.00, an amount below that which the Minister would have been entitled to had the matter proceeded to argument and judgment been handed down in the Minister's favour.

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

[2] "Tribunal Decision" and "Tribunal" respectively.

[4] Affidavit of Mr Richards filed 16 February 2026 ("Richards Affidavit") at [5]-[6].