GYK24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2025] FedCFamC2G 1337

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

GYK24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1337   

File number(s):

BRG 561 of 2024

Judgment of:

JUDGE EGAN

Date of judgment:

19 August 2025

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where applicant claimed that he was unwell as a result of him being involved in a motor vehicle accident between a vehicle driven by him and a kangaroo – where the applicant did not consult any medical practitioner after the alleged accident – where there was no evidentiary basis supporting the applicant’s claims – adjournment application refused.  

Cases cited:

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2015] FCAFC 75

MZAKQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1392

NAKX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1559

Sali v SPC Limited (1993) 116 ALR 62

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

8

Date of hearing:

7 August 2025

Counsel for the Applicant:

The applicant appeared on their own behalf

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Ms Tran, Sparke Helmore Lawyers

The Second Respondent:

Giving a submitting appearance, save as to costs

ORDERS

BRG 561 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

GYK24
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE EGAN
DATE OF ORDER:	19 AUGUST 2025

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.The oral application made today by the applicant for an adjournment of today’s hearing be refused.

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 EGAN

1. In this matter, the applicant sent an email to Chambers on 6 August 2025 seeking an adjournment of today’s hearing, based upon his assertion that he had a “car incident and at this moment I’m sick”. That email is marked as Exhibit 1.

2. Through an interpreter assisting him in today’s hearing, when asked when the incident occurred, the applicant said “today”.

3. When further asked where and when the accident occurred, the applicant replied that the accident occurred on 1 August 2025. The applicant also said that his car had collided with a kangaroo. He said that there was damage to his car. When asked what had happened to the kangaroo, the applicant said that the kangaroo had run away.

4. There is no medical evidence before the Court substantiating the claim that the applicant is unable to proceed with today’s hearing. Indeed, the applicant stated that he did not consult any medical practitioner after the occurrence of the alleged car accident.

5. As referred to by Logan J in MZAKQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1392 at [11], any adjournment will necessarily result in an opportunity cost in terms of the public resources invested in the exercise of the judicial power in the Commonwealth in the hearing of a proceeding. By that I mean, were the case to be adjourned, it would then fall for listing on a day to the exclusion of some other case, which might otherwise have been heard on that day. That such a consideration is relevant was highlighted in Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2015] FCAFC 75 at [49] in the reference to Sali v SPC Limited (1993) 116 ALR 62 at 629.

6. There are other authorities which provide that any substantiating medical report or certificate must go directly to a statement of the reason why someone who claims to be unable to appear at Court is validly making such a claim. [1]

   [1]           NAKX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1559, per

   Lindgren J at [6] - [11]

7. In the circumstances, the applicant has not established any basis for the adjournment of today's hearing.  Should the matter be adjourned, then necessarily this case would be listed on a day which otherwise would be available for the hearing of another matter involving other meritorious litigants waiting in queue.

8. Accordingly, the application for adjournment is refused.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan.

Associate:

Dated:       19 August 2025