FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CHP17 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 284
Appeal from: CHP17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1395 File number(s): NSD 683 of 2021 Judgment of: THAWLEY J Date of judgment: 1 April 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – where appellant did not appear – appeal dismissed Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 473DC Cases cited: CHP17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1395 Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 5 Date of hearing: 28 March 2025 Counsel for the Respondent: Michael Maynard Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear
Table of Corrections 4 April 2025 Name of first respondent changed Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ORDERS
NSD 683 of 2021 BETWEEN: CHP17
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
THAWLEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 APRIL 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be changed to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
2.The appeal be dismissed.
3.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
4.The first respondent serve these orders and reasons on the appellant within 7 days.
5.Service of these orders and reasons may be effected by email or in person.
6.The first respondent file an affidavit of service within 7 days of service of these orders on the appellant.
7.The appellant may apply to set aside orders 2 and 3 if that application is made within 7 days of service of these orders on him.
8.The first respondent has liberty to apply in relation to orders 4, 5 and 6 hereof.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THAWLEY J:
This proceeding is an appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, dismissing the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) – see: CHP17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1395.
At the request of the appellant, the appeal was listed for hearing in the Brisbane registry of the Court. The appellant did not appear at the hearing. A number of unsuccessful attempts were made to contact him.
At the hearing of the appeal, the Court raised with the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs the question whether the primary judge erred in failing to recognise jurisdictional error on the part of the IAA in the way the appellant had contended in his notice of appeal, which also reflected the case put to the primary judge.
It is sufficient for present purposes to observe that, in response, a number of cogent arguments were concisely put by counsel for the Minister as to why the appeal should be dismissed irrespective of whether the primary judge erred. These included that, on the preferable reading of its reasons, the IAA did not misunderstand its discretion under s 473DC of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as contended by the appellant and that, even it did, the error was not material.
As things presently stand, it would seem that the appellant does not wish to pursue his appeal. In the circumstances, I will make the orders to which these reasons relate.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Thawley. Associate:
Dated: 1 April 2025
- AGLC
- CHP17 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 284
- Case
- [2025] FCA 284
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the appellant's failure to appear constituted a valid reason for dismissing the appeal and whether the costs incurred by the Minister should be paid by the appellant. The court was also required to determine the appropriate method and timeline for serving the orders and reasons for the decision on the appellant.
In its reasoning, the court found that the appellant's non-appearance was a valid reason for dismissing the appeal. It held that the appellant's absence prevented a fair and effective hearing of the matter. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the Minister's costs. The court specified that these orders and reasons would be served on the appellant within seven days, either in person or via email. Additionally, the Minister was granted liberty to apply in relation to certain orders, and the appellant had the option to apply to set aside certain orders within seven days of being served.
The final orders included the amendment of the respondent's name, dismissal of the appeal, imposition of costs on the appellant, and specific directives regarding the service of orders and reasons, as well as the filing of an affidavit of service.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The name of the first respondent be changed to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
2. The appeal be dismissed.
3. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
4. The first respondent serve these orders and reasons on the appellant within 7 days.
5. Service of these orders and reasons may be effected by email or in person.
6. The first respondent file an affidavit of service within 7 days of service of these orders on the appellant.
7. The appellant may apply to set aside orders 2 and 3 if that application is made within 7 days of service of these orders on him.
8. The first respondent has liberty to apply in relation to orders 4, 5 and 6 hereof.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.