DCA22 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1382
•25 August 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
DCA22 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1382
File number(s): ADG 239 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE GERRARD Date of judgment: 25 August 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – protection visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – matter listed for a final hearing – no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant – application dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to rule 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.06(1)(c), 17.05(2)(a)
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 18 Date of last submission/s: 9 July 2025 Date of hearing: 25 August 2025 Place: Perth Applicant: No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant Counsel for the First Respondent: Bernadette Rayment Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
ADG 239 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: DCA22
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE GERRARD
DATE OF ORDER:
25 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
2.The application for judicial review filed on 14 September 2022 be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021.
3.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.
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 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE GERRARD:
INTRODUCTION
This matter was listed for a final hearing before the Court at 11.30am ACST / 10.00am AWST on 25 August 2025. When the matter commenced, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant either in person or by telephone.
In the circumstances, the Court made the following orders:
1.The name of the first respondent be amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
2.The application for judicial review filed on 14 September 2022 be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021.
3.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.
These reasons explain why the Court dismissed the matter for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (the Rules).
BACKGROUND
Before the Court is an application for judicial review filed in the Adelaide Registry of this Court on 14 September 2022 (the application). That application was accompanied by an affidavit which was sworn by the applicant on that same day.
The application was brought pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). By that application, the applicant sought review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 25 August 2022. In that decision, the Tribunal affirmed its decision dated 11 August 2022 to dismiss the application for non-appearance.
The matter was first listed for final hearing before me on 24 July 2025. On 10 July 2025, the applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing via email, on the basis of her inability to seek legal advice. The Court’s Migration Team advised the applicant to seek an adjournment by consent, and that unless advised otherwise, the hearing on 24 July 2025 would proceed.
By way of email on 23 July 2025, the applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing for medical reasons. The applicant provided an attachment of a referral made by her GP to seek treatment from a psychologist. On that same day, the parties were sent a listing notice via email advising them that the hearing on 24 July 2025 had been vacated and the matter had been re-listed on 25 August 2025. The parties were advised that they were permitted to attend remotely and were not required to attend in person.
On 1 August 2025, my Associate advised the parties by email that the hearing on 25 August 2025 would take place by Webex and provided the necessary information for the parties to dial in to the hearing.
When the matter came before the Court on 25 August 2025, the applicant did not join the Webex link, either by video or by telephone. Ms Rayment appeared by Webex on behalf of the first respondent (the Minister). Noting the applicant did not provide a telephone number in the footer of their application for judicial review, my Associate made three unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant via the telephone number associated with her Commonwealth Courts Portal account.
In those circumstances, counsel for the Minister applied to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Rules. Counsel also sought the Minister’s costs, fixed in the sum of $6,500.
In support of that application, Ms Rayment sought to rely on the affidavit of Tara Rossetto affirmed and filed on 16 July 2025. Annexed to that affidavit was email correspondence from the Minister to the applicant dated 9 July 2025. In this correspondence, the Minister put the applicant on notice of the final hearing date and that, should she not appear at this scheduled hearing before the Court, the Minister may seek to have the matter dismissed with costs.
Ms Rayment also sought to rely upon the email from my Associate dated 1 August 2025 which advised of the Webex details to join today’s hearing.
Noting the correspondence from the Court and the Minister’s lawyers, the Court was satisfied that the applicant had been properly notified of the hearing date and time, and how to join that hearing.
In light of the enquiries made, the Court was satisfied that the applicant did not appear at the final hearing of this matter at the designated time.
In respect of the costs order sought on behalf of the Minister, the Court was satisfied that the amount sought was appropriate in the circumstances, noting that it is below the scale amount for a proceeding concluded at a final hearing as set out in Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 1 of the Rules. The Minister effectively was required to prepare for a final hearing. The Minister had filed a Court Book and written submissions, and Ms Rayment was prepared to make oral submissions.
Shortly after orders were pronounced in this matter, the applicant emailed the Court advising she was “waiting on the line”. The applicant then joined the Webex link (which had not yet expired) and spoke to my Associate with the assistance of a Vietnamese interpreter. My Associate informed the applicant that orders had been made and that her application had been dismissed. She was then advised she could apply for reinstatement of her application.
CONCLUSION
In the circumstances, the Court has made orders to dismiss the matter for non-appearance and awarded costs to the Minister, as outlined at [2] above.
The Court notes that the applicant can apply to have her application reinstated pursuant to r 17.05(2)(a) of the Rules.
I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gerrard. Associate:
Dated: 25 August 2025
0
0
2