JHH24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1563

1. In circumstances where these orders were made in the absence of the applicant, the applicant may apply to the Court to set aside the orders above pursuant to r 24.04(a) of the GFL Rules.

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 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 matter is listed before me for hearing of the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal affirmed a decision made by a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The hearing was listed to commence at 12pm AWST. At that time, my associate advised me that the applicant was not present, and I deferred commencing the hearing for 15 minutes. When the matter was called at approximately 12:15pm, 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 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (GFL Rules).
2. In support of the oral application for dismissal for non-appearance, the Minister relies on a number of documents. The first of these is an email sent from my associate to the parties on 18 July 2025. That email has been marked as exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 advised the parties that the matter was listed for hearing today, on 19 September 2025, and that the hearing would now commence at 12pm AWST. That was to change the start time of the hearing. Exhibit 1 mistakenly advised the parties that the hearing would be proceeding by video link.
3. The second email relied on by the Minister is an email from my associate to the parties sent on 12 September 2025, and that email has been marked as exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 confirmed that the hearing would proceed at 12pm on 19 September 2025 and confirmed that the hearing would proceed in person. That email included a note to the applicant that if he failed to appear at the hearing on 19 September 2025, his application may be dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules.
4. The third email relied on by the Minister is an email from my associate sent to the parties on 15 September 2025. That email has been marked as exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 reminded the parties that the matter was listed for hearing today and confirmed that the hearing would proceed in person.
5. The Minister also relies on an affidavit of Aneesha Satyendra, which was filed on behalf of the Minister on 18 September 2025. Ms Satyendra's affidavit annexes an email sent from the Minister's lawyer to the applicant on 5 September 2025, which confirmed the date and time of the hearing and put the applicant on notice that if he did not appear at the hearing, the Minister may apply to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance.
6. Each of exhibit 1, exhibit 2, exhibit 3 and the email annexed to Ms Satyendra's affidavit were sent to the applicant at the email address recorded in his application filed in this Court on 28 October 2024. That email address is the most recent email address for service that the applicant has provided to this Court.
7. I am satisfied that the applicant was properly notified of the hearing date and time. I am also satisfied that, even though one email mistakenly indicated that the hearing would proceed by video, the applicant has been properly put on notice that the hearing is to take place in person. I am satisfied that the applicant was put on notice of the potential consequences if he failed to appear at the hearing.
8. As already indicated, when the matter was called, there was no appearance by or for the applicant. This continued to be the case after my associate called the matter outside the courtroom three times. My associate has checked their chambers email account and checked with registry staff to confirm that the applicant has not contacted the Court in relation to today's hearing. I am satisfied that the applicant has failed to appear at the hearing today, and there is no information before the Court to provide any apparent reasonable explanation for that non-appearance.
9. 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.
10. 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 24.04(a) of the GFL Rules. If the Court were to make such an order, that would have the effect of reinstating his judicial review application.
11. The Minister seeks an order that the applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the amount of $5,900. I am satisfied that that amount is appropriate, noting that it is below the scale amount for matters dismissed at final hearing, and it is also appropriate having regard to the work the Minister would have been required to perform in preparing this matter through to a final hearing.
12. The Minister's name has changed since the application was filed, and the Minister also seeks an order to reflect the change of the Minister's name. I am satisfied this is appropriate.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams.