JHO24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1697
•9 October 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
JHO24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1697
File number: PEG 416 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE LADHAMS Date of judgment: 9 October 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 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 2025 (Cth) r 22.04 Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 10 Date of hearing: 9 October 2025 Place: Perth (via Webex) Applicant: No appearance by or for the applicant Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms I Macdonald Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs Solicitor for the Respondents: The Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
PEG 416 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: JHO24
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LADHAMS
DATE OF ORDER:
9 OCTOBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application is dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Rules) Rules 2025 (Cth) (GFL Rules).
2.The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $4,000.
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:
The applicant’s judicial review application is listed before me today for a directions hearing by video link. The applicant has failed to appear at the directions hearing, and the Minister asks the Court to dismiss the applicant’s judicial review application 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 two documents in support of the oral application for dismissal. The first is an affidavit of Isabelle Terese Macdonald, which was filed on 3 October 2025 and annexes various correspondence between the Minister, the applicant and the Court. The second evidentiary document is an email sent from my associates to the parties on 3 October 2025 advising of the listing today, and that email has been marked as exhibit 1.
The directions hearing has been listed today in the following circumstances. The applicant’s judicial review application was listed for final hearing on 3 October 2025 at 12:00pm, and the parties were notified of that listing on 18 July 2025. On 19 September 2025 the Minister’s lawyer wrote to the Court asking to be excused from filing written submissions and requesting that the matter be listed for a directions hearing in the place of a final hearing. This email attached an affidavit that had been filed that day of Margarita Carmen Woollett, which annexed copies of records from the Department of Home Affairs. Those records indicated that the applicant had departed Australia, her bridging visa ceased on the day she departed, and she does not currently hold a visa that would allow her to lawfully return to Australia. I agreed to the course proposed by the Minister in circumstances where I was also aware the applicant had attempted to file a notice of discontinuance, but that form had not been accepted for filing due to some irregularities.
My associate wrote to the parties on 19 September 2025 confirming that the matter was now listed for a directions hearing on 3 October 2025 at 12:00pm AWST and the directions hearing would take place by video. My associate wrote to the parties again on 26 September 2025 confirming the directions hearing listed on 3 October 2025 and providing details on how to join the directions hearing via Webex.
On 3 October 2025 there was an issue with Webex and the Court could not be confident that the hearing would be able to proceed by Webex. Shortly before the directions hearing, the parties were emailed details about how to join the directions by Microsoft Teams. The applicant did not appear at the directions hearing on 3 October 2025 but, in circumstances where the Court had changed the video method from Webex to Microsoft Teams shortly before the directions hearing, I declined to dismiss the application for non-appearance. I instead listed a further directions hearing today.
The applicant was notified of the directions hearing today by way of the email sent from my associates on 3 October 2025, which, as indicated, has been marked as exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 contained information about how to join the video listing by Webex and put the applicant on notice that if she did not appear at the directions hearing today, her application may be dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules.
Each of the emails in evidence before the Court (namely, exhibit 1 and those annexed to the affidavit of Ms Macdonald) was sent to the applicant at the email address recorded in her judicial review application filed on 29 October 2024. This is the most recent email address for service that the applicant has provided to the Court.
I am satisfied that the applicant was properly notified of the directions hearing today and the possible consequences of not appearing. The applicant has not appeared at the directions hearing today, and there is nothing before the Court to explain why she has not appeared today.
In circumstances where the applicant has been properly notified of the directions hearing, and there is no explanation for her non-appearance known to the Court, it is appropriate to dismiss the application for non-appearance pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules.
The Minister seeks a further order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs fixed in the amount of $4,000. I note that this is below the amount set out in the scale in the schedule to the GFL Rules, and I am satisfied it is appropriate having regard to the work the Minister has been required to perform in this matter.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams. Associate:
Dated: 15 October 2025
0
0
1