Rahim v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 630

1. By his oral application, the legal representative for the first respondent seeks that the applicant's application for judicial review be dismissed pursuant to r 22.04 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (Rules) on the basis that the applicant, Mr Abdur Rahim, has not appeared at the final hearing nor has there been an appearance on his behalf.

1. The applicant filed an application for judicial review on 2 December 2019 together with an affidavit in support. The application identified an address for service in Australia as Young & Muggleton Lawyers of 99 Percival Road, Stanmore NSW 2048, an email address of tim@youngandmuggleton.com.au, a landline telephone number of (02) 9568 3655 and the front page of that application stating, "Attention: Timothy R. Young". Those particulars comprised the information of address for service at that time.
2. On 2 December 2019, Mr. Young affirmed an affidavit in support of his client's application. That affidavit similarly contained an address for service which was identical to that on the application. It is notable that the solicitor on the record is also the deponent of an affidavit. Not only does he have a duty to the court consistent with his obligations as a legal practitioner, but he has made himself a witness in the proceedings and has deposed to the truth of the affidavit.
3. On 10 December 2019, the first respondent filed a response seeking the dismissal of the application and costs. Also on 10 December 2019, the second respondent filed a submitting notice. The affidavit of Mr Jeremiah Edagbami, filed on 28 January 2026, annexed a chronology of correspondence, the first of which is an email dated 11 December 2019 from an officer of his firm to tim@youngandmuggleton.com.au, which I will hereafter style as the applicant's lawyer's email address, attaching a notice of address for service, a response, submitting notice, and a letter.
4. According to the court file on 23 January 2020, the matter was before a Registrar for a first call over at which time procedural directions were made by consent. Order 9 of those orders reads:
   1. Any change of address by the Applicant must be notified immediately by filing and serving a Notice of Address for Service upon the First Respondent.
5. Mr Edagbami's affidavit of service demonstrates that on 28 January 2020 his firm wrote to Mr Young enclosing, by way of service, a relevant bundle of documents which I take to be the court book, otherwise described in the letter as the "green book".
6. On 28 November 2025, after which time the proceedings had been docketed to me, the matter was listed for hearing. The notification of listing was addressed to Young & Muggleton at 99 Percival Road, Stanmore NSW 2048, and to the email address: tim@youngandmuggleton.com.au, those being the applicant's addresses for service. The notice of listing stated that the matter was listed for hearing on 3 February 2026 at 10:15am at 80 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011. That notice of listing was emailed from my chambers to tim@youngandmuggleton.com.au amongst other email addresses.
7. On 28 November 2025, the matter came before me in chambers at which time a formal order was made listing the matter for hearing as well as procedural orders. Those orders were emailed to the parties under cover of the 28 November 2025 email from my chambers. On 3 December 2025, a notification of listing for directions was made to the parties using the same street address and email address as previously mentioned for the applicant.
8. The matter was listed at 10:15am on 15 December 2025 to be conducted by Webex. The notice of listing said in bold and underlined text:

Please note that so long as you are the solicitor on record, you are required to appear at the directions listing.

1. This notification for listing was similarly emailed to the applicant at the applicant's representative's email address under cover of email from my chambers.
2. On 15 December 2025, the matter was listed for a directions hearing at which time there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. A solicitor of Clayton Utz appeared for the first respondent. Amongst other things noted in those orders were these notations:

1. The court file indicates that Young & Muggleton are the solicitors on the record for the applicant. 2. The Minister's legal representative has indicated to the court that the firm continues to operate but may not practise migration law anymore.

1. Any lawyer on the record should ensure that the address for service details are up to date at all times.

1. The applicant required an interpreter in the Bengali language.
2. The affidavit of service demonstrates that on 12 January 2026 an officer of the law firm acting for the first respondent emailed tim@youngandmuggleton.com.au, serving upon him the first respondent's notice of address for service notifying a change in responsible solicitor. In January 2026, my chambers arranged for the attendance of an interpreter in the Bengali language at the final hearing and such interpreter duly attended the court at public expense.
3. On 27 January 2026 the respondent filed a list of authorities and written submissions, and I note from the affidavit of service that those documents were served on the applicant's lawyer at the applicant's lawyer's email address. The same documents were further served the following day together with a letter noting that the matter was listed for hearing on 3 February 2026 at 10:15am in Courtroom 8.3, 80 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011.
4. According to the court file on 30 January 2026, an email was sent from my chambers to the parties and practitioners using the same email address for the applicant, reiterating that the proceedings were listed for an in-person hearing before me on 3 February 2026 at 10:15am in Courtroom 8.3 together with other information concerning face-to-face hearings. On 2 February 2026, the respondent's lawyer emailed the applicant at the same email address, reminding him and his client of the final hearing with the details stated and inquiring, "would it be possible to confirm that you will be acting for the Applicant at the final hearing."
5. I note also that a court book has been prepared, or green book as it was described in the correspondence, comprising some 289 pages of material.

1. Rule 22.04 of the Rules provides:

22.04 Absence of party at hearing

(1) If a party is absent from a hearing, the Court may:

(i) dismiss the application; or

(ii) adjourn the application; or

(iii) order that the hearing proceed only if specified steps are taken; or

(iv) proceed with the hearing generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceeding; or

(i) order that the hearing proceed generally or in relation to a particular aspect of the application; or

(ii) adjourn the hearing; or

(iii) order that the hearing proceed only if specified steps are taken; or

(c) if the absent party has made an interlocutory application or a cross‑claim - dismiss the application or cross‑claim.

(2) If a hearing proceeds in a party's absence and at the hearing an order is made, the party who was absent may apply to the Court for an order:

(a) setting aside or varying the order; and

(b) for the further conduct of the proceeding.

1. I must be first satisfied that the applicant is fairly on notice of the proceedings and I am so satisfied. The evidence demonstrates that the applicant, by his application filed in 2019, caused his solicitor to identify his address for service as being 99 Percival Road, Stanmore NSW 2048, with an email address of tim@youngandmuggleton.com.au. There is no evidence on the court file as to an update or change to those details. I am mindful of order 9 made in January 2020 specifically reminding the applicant of the need to keep such information up to date, and my own notation in December 2025 to a similar effect.
2. The court and the respondents are entitled to rely on the information on the court file as to the applicant's address for service and other relevant contact details. It is for the applicant to be responsible for the carriage of his own proceedings. Whilst I accept the applicant may be a person of no legal training and for whom English is not his first or fluent language, they are nevertheless proceedings he has instituted or instructed others to conduct for him. It is therefore for him to ensure that details are kept up to date or instruct those to keep them up to date on his behalf.
3. I am satisfied from the affidavit of service that the evidence demonstrates that all relevant documents filed by the respondent were served on the applicant at the stated service address. Further communication from my chambers, together with the mention in December 2025 and correspondence from Mr Edagbami reiterated the attempts to put the applicant on notice of the proceedings. The proceedings were listed on 3 February 2026 at 10:15am. The matter was on time. I gave what ultimately was a 20-minute adjournment to allow for any misadventure or inconvenience that may have been occasioned for either the applicant or his lawyers in reaching the registry on time but there remained to be no appearance.
4. There has been no correspondence from the applicant or his lawyer to indicate that he has otherwise met with misadventure, nor has any application been made for the matter to be adjourned for any reason, nor any communication to the respondent's lawyers to mention his appearance on his behalf and provide an explanation that way. The proceedings have been before the Court for five years and it is in the interest of the administration of justice that such proceedings be finalised.
5. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the proceedings to be dismissed on the basis that the applicant is absent from the hearing. I further note that the applicant has a right to make an application for reinstatement in certain circumstances and that such rights remain unaffected by this decision. Were he to make such an application, he would need to provide evidence to me of the reason for his non-appearance. Such reason would need to be satisfactory and to demonstrate to me that the merits of his case are such that I should entertain the re-litigation of the matter. Those are matters for him should he wish to avail himself of them, but I am otherwise satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss the proceedings for want of appearance.

1. The Minister's legal representative made an application for costs in his client's favour fixed in the sum of $9,097.93. In support of that application, the Minister's legal representative says that the matter has reached the stage of a final hearing, the applicant has not appeared, that the costs are reasonable and reflect those of the scale.
2. There is somewhat of an unresolved issue concerning the scale of costs under the current Rules for migration in that, the fine print of the Schedule states, "...for work done or services performed on and after 1 September 2025". There is some level of discourse as to whether that means that only work done and appearances made, on and after September 2025 are captured by the current Schedule and that work done prior to that ought to be captured by the preceding schedule.
3. In the absence of a contradictor, my view is that I will make the order as sought by the Minister which relies exclusively on the current schedule. If that be wrong, it is an order that has been made in the absence of the applicant, in respect of which he similarly has a right to reinstate the matter and cause it to be re-considered.
4. I am satisfied that the first respondent has been put to cost. He has prepared a response, written submissions, a list of authorities and a court book. He has otherwise incurred costs in the conduct of the proceedings and the attendances at various court events, including the final hearing. He came prepared today to conduct a final hearing with the relevant preparation that was required.
5. I am satisfied that it is convenient to make a sum in a fixed amount to avoid additional cost and time involved in taxation and assessment. This is further a jurisdiction in which costs follow the event.
6. I am satisfied for these reasons that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to make an order for costs in favour of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $9,097.93.

I certify that the preceding twenty-seven (27) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Eldershaw.