BHG16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor

The applicant, BHG16, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Anor concerning a protection visa application. The dispute arose after the applicant sent an email to the court on the scheduled hearing date, relying on a medical certificate stating unfitness for their usual occupation for two days. This was treated as a request for an adjournment, which was opposed by the respondent. The primary application was dismissed, and a subsequent application for reinstatement was also dismissed. The matter was heard by Judge A Kelly.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had provided an adequate explanation for their non-attendance at the hearing, and whether the grounds for judicial review were reasonably arguable. Further, the court considered the principles governing applications for adjournment and reinstatement, including the adequacy of the explanation for non-attendance and the question of prejudice. The court also addressed whether it could reject unchallenged evidence, particularly where the evidence was inherently unbelievable, and the extent to which an opponent was required to cross-examine or was free to make submissions on the adequacy of an explanation.

Judge Kelly reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate an inability to travel to court or present their claim. The medical certificate, indicating unfitness for only two days, was not considered an adequate explanation for non-attendance at the hearing. The court applied the principle that for an adjournment to be granted, there must be a compelling reason, and the applicant had failed to establish such a reason. Furthermore, the grounds for judicial review were not considered reasonably arguable, leading to the dismissal of the initial application. The application for reinstatement was also dismissed as the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for their prior non-attendance and the subsequent delay. The court noted that an opponent is not required to cross-examine unchallenged evidence and is free to make submissions regarding the adequacy of an explanation.

The applications were dismissed.