Lupera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FedCFamC2G 120

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).

1. These are the reasons for judgment delivered ex tempore on 28 January 2026, revised from transcript only to include extracts of cited documents and to make corrections of typographical errors or minor matters to reflect the intention of the Court.
2. By an application for judicial review filed with the Court on 12 September 2019, the applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the second respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (as it then was) made 29 August 2019, which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent refusing to grant the applicant a Student (Subclass 500) visa. The applicant is a citizen of the Philippines and applied for the visa on 8 September 2017. After filing the application for judicial review, the proceeding was listed for directions before a registrar on 25 March 2025. Orders were made on that occasion directing the applicant to file and serve any amended application and evidence in support at least 28 days before the final hearing of this application. The applicant did not do so.
3. On 2 December 2025, a notice of listing was sent by the registry of the Court to the email address for service provided by the applicant to the registry. The notice nominated this day as the date for the hearing of the application in person at the Court in Melbourne. On 8 January 2026, the solicitors for the first respondent sent an email to the applicant confirming the time and date and place of the final hearing of the application, to which, I am told by Ms Liddy, who appears on behalf of the Minister, there was no response. The Minister also relies upon an affidavit of Ms Amron Rath affirmed 13 January 2026, and the annexures thereto, which confirms that a copy of the Court Book was served on the applicant on 22 April 2025, and a copy of the respondent's outline of written submissions was served on the applicant, again, by email, on 8 January 2026.
4. In addition to the notice of listing from the Court, my chambers sent to the applicant on 20 January 2026 an appearance request, asking the applicant to confirm her appearance at the hearing scheduled for today. On 27 January 2026 at 4.28pm, my chambers received an email from the applicant, or someone on behalf of the applicant, from the email address given to the registry as the last contact address for the applicant, in which it was said the following:

Hi,

Rebecca Lupera will not be attending the hearing.

Thank you.

My chambers then sent a further request, asking for clarification by email to the same email address and received the following response on 27 January 2026 at 11:10pm, as follows:

Hi, no one will be appearing.

1. The time is now 10:25am, and the applicant has not appeared. The matter was listed for hearing at 10:00am this morning. I am satisfied that the applicant was notified of the time, place and date of this hearing at the address nominated as the applicant's address for service, which was the email address provided by the applicant to the Court for correspondence. I am also satisfied that the applicant's non-attendance has occurred in circumstances where the applicant was aware that an appearance in person was required.
2. In the circumstances, I am prepared to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to Rules 5.08, 5.10 and 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2 General Federal Law Rules 2025 (Cth). The solicitor on behalf of the Minister has sought the Minister's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the proceeding, fixed in the sum of $6,500.00, which is less than the scale fee for a contested hearing provided for in the Rules. The sum sought is a fair and reasonable sum in the circumstances of the case and costs should follow the event.
3. I also note that there needs to be a change of name for the first respondent from 'Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' to the current ministerial portfolio of 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.

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