HVM24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1521
•12 September 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
HVM24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1521
File number: PEG 359 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE LADHAMS Date of judgment: 12 September 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 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth). Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.06
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) rr 22.04, 24.04
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 11 Date of hearing: 12 September 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 359 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: HVM24
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LADHAMS
DATE OF ORDER:
12 SEPTEMBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent is amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
2.The application is 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) (GFL Rules).
3.The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $5,900.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.In circumstances where these orders were made in the absence of the applicant, the applicant may apply to the Court to set aside the orders above pursuant to r 24.04(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 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
(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 at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal affirmed a decision 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 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (GFL Rules).
The Minister relies on a number of documents in support of this application. Those documents include an affidavit of Aneesha Satyendra, filed on 5 September 2025. That affidavit annexes correspondence that the Minister’s lawyer sent to the applicant on 29 August 2025 confirming that the hearing was listed on 12 September 2025 at 12pm AWST, and that the hearing would take place in person. That correspondence also put the applicant on notice that if he did not appear at the hearing, the Minister may apply to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance under r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), which were the rules that applied at the time the correspondence was sent.
The Minister also relies on three emails from the Court file. The first of those emails, which has been marked as exhibit 1, is an email sent from my associate to the parties on 18 July 2025 advising them that the matter was listed for hearing on 12 September 2025 at 12pm AWST. That email mistakenly advised the parties that the hearing would be taking place by video link rather than in person.
The second email on the Court file that the Minister relies on is an email sent on 26 August 2025. That email has been marked as exhibit 2 and confirms that the hearing would be taking place in person rather than by video.
The third email that the Minister relies on is an email sent on 5 September 2025 from my associate to the parties. That email has been marked as exhibit 3. That email confirms that the matter is listed for hearing at 12pm AWST on 12 September 2025 and that the hearing will take place in person. That email also puts the applicant on notice that if he does not appear at the hearing his application may be dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules.
Each of the emails sent to the applicant was sent to him at the email address recorded in his application for judicial review filed on 26 September 2024, which contains the most recent email address for service that the applicant has provided to the Court. I am satisfied that the email correspondence referred to and the correspondence from the Minister’s lawyer that is in Ms Satyendra’s affidavit properly put the applicant on notice of the hearing today. Although one of the emails incorrectly indicated that the hearing would proceed by video, I am satisfied that the applicant was given adequate notice that the hearing is, in fact, taking place in person.
The matter was listed for hearing to commence at 12pm. My associate informed me at that time that the applicant was not present in the court room and I deferred calling the matter for approximately 20 minutes. When the matter was called at about 12:20pm there was no appearance by or for the applicant. There is nothing on the Court file or otherwise before the Court to explain why the applicant is not here today. My chambers have not received any communication from the applicant in relation to the hearing. I am satisfied that the applicant has failed to appear at the hearing today and there does not appear to be any reasonable explanation for his non-appearance.
In circumstances where the applicant has been properly notified of 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 24.04(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 two additional orders today. The first is an order that the name of the first respondent be amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’. I am satisfied that that order is appropriate, having regard to the change in the name of the Minister.
The second additional order sought by the Minister is that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs fixed in the amount of $5,900. Having regard to the work that the Minister has been required to perform in this matter, which is listed for final hearing today, and the scale amount in the GFL Rules, I am satisfied that the quantum of costs sought by the Minister is appropriate.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams. Associate:
Dated: 18 September 2025
0
0
2