KKG24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1652
•2 October 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
KKG24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1652
File number: PEG 465 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE LADHAMS Date of judgment: 2 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) rr 22.04, 24.04 Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 12 Date of hearing: 2 October 2025 Place: Perth Applicant: No appearance by or for the applicant Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms G Ellis Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs Solicitor for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore Lawyers ORDERS
PEG 465 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: KKG24
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LADHAMS
DATE OF ORDER:
2 OCTOBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent is amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
2.The applicant’s application filed on 30 November 2024 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 $6,500.
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 for hearing of the applicant’s application for judicial review, which was lodged electronically and received by the Court on 29 November 2024 after 4:30pm, and is therefore deemed to have been filed on 30 November 2024. The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal, which in turn affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse 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 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) (GFL Rules).
The Minister relies on three documents in support of the oral application for dismissal. The first of these documents is an email that my associate sent to the parties on 15 July 2025. That email has been marked as exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 contains a listing notice which puts the parties on notice that the application is listed for hearing on 2 October 2025 at 2:00pm AWST, and that the hearing would take place in person. Exhibit 1 also puts the applicant on notice that, if there is no appearance by or for the applicant at the hearing, the application may be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s rules that were in force at that point in time.
The second document relied on by the Minister is an email from my associate to the parties sent on 25 September 2025. That email has been marked as exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 confirms or reminds the parties that the matter is listed for hearing at 2:00pm on 2 October 2025 and confirms that the hearing will proceed in person. Exhibit 2 puts the applicant on notice that if she does not appear at the hearing on 2 October 2025, her application may be dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules.
The third document relied on by the Minister is an affidavit of service of Aatika Ismailjee filed on 30 September 2025. Ms Ismailjee’s affidavit contains an annexure, which is correspondence sent to the applicant on 10 September 2025. That correspondence confirms the matter is listed for hearing on 2 October 2025 at 2:00pm and that the applicant is required to attend the Court on this occasion. The correspondence also puts the applicant on notice that, if she does not attend on this occasion, the Minister will seek orders from the Court that her matter be dismissed and that she pay the Minister’s legal costs of the proceeding.
Each of exhibit 1, exhibit 2 and the correspondence in Ms Ismailjee’s affidavit was sent to the applicant using the email address recorded in her application filed on 30 November 2025. That application contains the most recent email address for service that the applicant has provided to the Court.
I am satisfied that exhibit 1, exhibit 2 and the correspondence annexed to Ms Ismailjee’s affidavit have put the applicant on notice of the hearing today. The hearing was listed to commence at 2:00pm. I deferred calling the hearing at that time, and the hearing was called at approximately 2:15pm. At that time, there was no appearance by or for the applicant. My associate called the matter outside the courtroom three times to confirm that the applicant was not waiting outside the courtroom. There is nothing on the Court file or otherwise before the Court to explain why the applicant has not attended the hearing today.
I am satisfied that the applicant has failed to appear at the hearing today and that there does not appear to be any reasonable explanation apparent on the Court file to explain her 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 today, I am satisfied 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 judicial review application.
The Minister seeks an order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs fixed in the amount of $6,500. It is appropriate in this matter that costs follow the event, and I am satisfied that the quantum of costs sought by the Minister is appropriate, having regard to the work that the Minister was required to perform. I note that the quantum of costs sought by the Minister is significantly below the amount set out in the scale in the GFL Rules.
The Minister also seeks an order that the name of the Minister be amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’. I am satisfied that this is appropriate, having regard to 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: 10 October 2025
0
0
1