HCG24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1717
•17 October 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
HCG24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1717
File number(s): PEG 333 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE GERRARD Date of judgment: 17 October 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – protection visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – judicial review – no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant – application dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth). Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) rr 22.04(1)(a)(i), 24.04(a)
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 16 Date of last submission/s: 13 June 2025 Date of hearing: 17 October 2025 Place: Perth Applicant: No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant Counsel for the First Respondent: Benjamin Mayne Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
PEG 333 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: HCG24
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE GERRARD
DATE OF ORDER:
17 OCTOBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be amended to read ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
2.The application for judicial review be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
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 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE GERRARD:
INTRODUCTION
This matter was listed before the Court for a final hearing in the Perth Registry at 10.00am AWST on 17 October 2025. When the matter commenced, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant.
In the circumstances, the Court made the following orders:
(1)The name of the first respondent be amended to read ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
(2)The application for judicial review be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
(3)The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.
The following reasons explain why the Court dismissed the matter for non-appearance pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (the Rules).
BACKGROUND
Before the Court is an application for judicial review filed in the Perth Registry of this Court on 10 September 2024 (the application). That application was accompanied by an affidavit which was affirmed by the applicant on 4 September 2024.
That application was brought pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). By that application, the applicant sought review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.
On 10 January 2025, the parties were notified by email that the application for judicial review had been listed for final hearing before Judge Kendall on 4 August 2025.
On 22 April 2025, parties were advised that the hearing on 4 August 2025 had been vacated due to a change in judicial availability and re-listed for hearing on 30 June 2025. On 26 June 2025, the parties were again advised that the final hearing scheduled for 30 June 2025 had been vacated and would be re-listed in due course.
On 15 August 2025, the matter was transferred to the docket of Judge Gerrard and re-listed for final hearing on 17 October 2025 in the Perth Registry of the Court. On each of the above occasions, parties were notified via email of the relevant listing details.
When the matter came before the Court on 17 October 2025, the applicant was not present in the courtroom. Mr Mayne appeared as counsel on behalf of the first respondent (the Minister). My associate made three unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant by the telephone number provided within the applicant’s application to the Court. My associate then called the applicant’s pseudonym three times within the precincts of the courtroom. The applicant failed to appear and otherwise had not made any contact with the Court to explain their non-attendance.
In those circumstances, counsel for the Minister applied to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Rules. Counsel also sought that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs, fixed in the sum of $6,500.
In support of that application, Mr Mayne sought to rely on the affidavit of service of Aatika Ismailjee affirmed and filed on 13 October 2025. Annexed to that affidavit was correspondence from the Minister to the applicant dated 13 June 2025 which put the applicant on notice that, should she fail to appear at the scheduled hearing, the Minister may seek to have her matter dismissed with costs. Although that correspondence referred to an earlier listing date of 30 June 2025 which was subsequently vacated and re-listed, Mr Mayne submitted that the applicant was appropriately on notice of the consequences of failing to appear at a court hearing.
Mr Mayne also sought to rely upon the email from my associate dated 15 August 2025 which advised that the matter had been listed for final hearing on 17 October 2025 and that attendance was required in person at the Perth Registry.
Noting the history of this matter and the correspondence from the Court, the Court was satisfied that the applicant had been properly notified of the date and time of today’s hearing. In light of the enquiries made, the Court was satisfied that the applicant did not appear at the hearing 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 2 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 Mr Mayne was prepared to make oral submissions today.
CONCLUSION
In the circumstances, the Court made orders to dismiss the matter for non-appearance and award costs to the Minister, as outlined above.
The Court notes that the applicant can apply to have her application reinstated pursuant to r 24.04(a) of the Rules.
I certify that the preceding sixteen (16) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gerrard. Associate:
Dated: 17 October 2025
0
0
2