GXX24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1323
•12 August 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
GXX24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1323
File number: PEG 329 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE LADHAMS Date of judgment: 12 August 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicant failed to appear at a listing before the Court relating to her judicial review application – application dismissed pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 2, rr 13.06, 17.05 Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 11 Date of hearing: 12 August 2025 Place: Perth Applicant: No appearance by or for the applicant Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms A Tyagi Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs Solicitor for the Respondents: MinterEllison ORDERS
PEG 329 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: GXX24
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LADHAMS
DATE OF ORDER:
12 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent is amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
2.The application for judicial review is dismissed pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (GFL Rules).
3.The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs of the application fixed in the amount of $5,900.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.In circumstances where this Order was made in the absence of the applicant, the applicant may apply to the Court to set aside the orders above pursuant to r 17.05(2)(a) of the GFL Rules.
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
(Delivered ex tempore and revised from the transcript)
JUDGE LADHAMS:
This matter is listed before me today for hearing of the applicant’s application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. When the matter was called, there was no appearance by or for the applicant. Counsel for the Minister made an oral application for the applicant’s judicial review application to be dismissed, pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (GFL Rules).
The evidence before the Court for the purposes of the Minister’s application for dismissal comprises:
(a)an email sent from my associate to the parties on 17 February 2025, advising the parties of the listing for hearing (exhibit 1); and
(b)an affidavit of Aneesha Satyendra filed on 5 August 2025 on behalf of the Minister.
The applicant was notified of the listing for hearing in the email that has been marked as exhibit 1. That email was sent to the parties on 17 February 2025 and was sent to the applicant at the email address recorded in her application and affidavit which were both filed on 5 September 2024. The documents filed by the applicant on 5 September 2024 contain the most recent email address for service that the applicant has provided to the Court. Exhibit 1 clearly set out the time, date and place for hearing and confirmed that the hearing would proceed in person. The applicant was put on notice by exhibit 1 that if she did not appear at the hearing, the application may be dismissed pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the GFL Rules.
The affidavit of Ms Satyendra contains an annexure which is an email sent by the Minister’s lawyer to the applicant on 30 July 2025. That email was also sent to the applicant at the email address recorded in her application and affidavit. The email from the Minister’s lawyer put the applicant on notice that if she did not appear at the final hearing on 12 August 2025 at 10am, the Minister may apply to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance under
r 13.06(1)(c) of the GFL Rules, with costs.
I am satisfied that the applicant was properly notified of the listing for hearing today and of the potential consequences for failing to appear.
The hearing was scheduled to start at 10am AWST. At that time my associate advised me that the applicant was not yet in attendance. I deferred the start time of the hearing for 15 minutes, just in case the applicant was running late. When the matter was called at 10:15am, there was still no appearance by or for the applicant. My associate called the matter outside the courtroom three times and there continued to be no appearance by or for the applicant.
There is nothing available to the Court to explain why the applicant is not present at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the applicant has failed to appear at the hearing today and there is no apparent explanation on the Court file to explain that non-appearance.
In circumstances where the applicant has been properly notified at the hearing and without any apparent reasonable explanation, has failed to appear at the hearing, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss the application for non-appearance.
I note that in circumstances where the Court is making orders to dismiss the application in the absence of the applicant, the applicant may apply to the Court for the orders to be set aside, pursuant to r 17.05(2)(a) of the GFL Rules. If the Court were to make such an order, that would have the effect of reinstating the application.
There are two further orders sought by the Minister today. The first is an order to change the name of the minister to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’ to reflect the Minister’s current title. I am satisfied that order is appropriate.
The second further order sought by the Minister is an order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs, fixed in the amount of $5,900. I am also satisfied that that order is appropriate. The matter has proceeded to a final hearing and the amount sought by the Minister is less than the amount set out in the relevant scale in Sch 2 to the GFL Rules for migration matters concluded at a final hearing. I am also satisfied that the amount is appropriate having regard to the level of work that would have been required by the Minister in responding to this matter.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams. Associate:
Dated: 18 August 2025
0
0
1