HMP24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2025] FedCFamC2G 535
•2 April 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
HMP24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 535
File number: PEG 345 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE LADHAMS Date of judgment: 2 April 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicant failed to appear at a listing before the Court relating to his 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) rr 13.06, 17.05 Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 12 Date of hearing: 2 April 2025 Place: Perth (via Microsoft Teams) Applicant: No appearance by or for the applicant Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr B Mayne Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs Solicitor for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore Lawyers ORDERS
PEG 345 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: HMP24
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LADHAMS
DATE OF ORDER:
2 APRIL 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent is amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs’.
2.The application 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 fixed in the amount of $3,900.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.In circumstances where the application was dismissed 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)
The substantive application before the Court is an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
The application is listed before me today for a directions hearing. The listing for a directions hearing was made at the request of the Minister, in circumstances where an email from the Minister’s lawyer indicated that the applicant had departed Australia and does not hold a visa which would permit his re-entry.
When the matter was called today there was no appearance by or for the applicant. The Minister made an oral application for the applicant’s 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 applicant was notified of the listing of the directions hearing by way of an email sent from my chambers on 26 March 2025, which was tendered by the Minister and marked as exhibit 1. That email was sent to the applicant at the email address recorded in his application filed on 13 September 2024, which is the most recent email address for service that the applicant has provided to the Court.
The email listing notice clearly set out the time and date for the directions hearing and advised the parties that the directions hearing would take place by Microsoft Teams. The email also contained a link to join the Microsoft Teams hearing and information about using Microsoft Teams.
The email sent on 26 March 2025 put the applicant on notice that if he failed to appear at the directions hearing, his application may be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the GFL Rules. I am satisfied that the applicant was properly notified of the directions hearing and the potential consequences of failing to appear.
When the matter was called there was no appearance by or for the applicant. Through the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin language I took steps to ensure that the applicant was not otherwise connected to the directions hearing, and my Associate had made three attempts to contact the applicant by telephone on the telephone number recorded in his judicial review application prior to the matter being called in Court. Those attempts were unsuccessful.
Once the matter was called in Court, my Associate also called the matter three times outside the court room to confirm that there was no appearance by or for the applicant.
I am satisfied that the applicant has failed to appear at the directions hearing and there is nothing before the Court to indicate that he has any reasonable explanation for failing to appear.
In circumstances where the applicant has been properly notified of the directions hearing and, without reasonable explanation, has failed to appear at the directions hearing, I am satisfied it is appropriate to dismiss the judicial review application pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the GFL Rules.
I note that in circumstances where the Court dismisses 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.
The Minister seeks an order that the applicant pay his costs fixed in the amount of $3,900. I note that that is less than the amount set out in the Court scale for proceedings that are concluded after the Court date and at or before an interlocutory hearing, and I am satisfied that the amount of $3,900 is appropriate. The Minister also seeks an order that his name be changed to ‘Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs’. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate order to make to reflect the current title of the Minister.
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams. Associate:
Dated: 15 April 2025
0
0
1