Rajimanickam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2025] FedCFamC2G 413
•21 March 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Rajimanickam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 413
File number(s): ADG 179 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE GERRARD Date of judgment: 21 March 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – visitor visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – matter listed for a final hearing – no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant – application dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to rule 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.06(1)(c), 17.05(2)(a)
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 15 Date of last submission/s: 27 February 2025 Date of hearing: 21 March 2025 Place: Adelaide Applicant: No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant Counsel for the First Respondent: Tara Rossetto Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
ADG 179 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: VILLA RAJIMANICKAM
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE GERRARD
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
2.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 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
JUDGE GERRARD:
INTRODUCTION
This matter was listed for a final hearing before the Court in person at 10.00am on 21 March 2025. When the matter commenced, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant, either online or in person.
In the circumstances, the Court made the following orders:
1.The application be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
2.The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.
These reasons explain why the Court dismissed the matter for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (the Rules).
BACKGROUND
Before the Court is an application for judicial review filed in the Adelaide Registry of this Court on 16 June 2021 (the application). That application was accompanied by an affidavit which was affirmed by the applicant on that same day.
The application was brought pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). By that application, the applicant sought review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 13 May 2021. In that decision, the Tribunal affirmed the decision made by a delegate of the first respondent (the Minister) refusing to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) (Subclass 600) visa.
On 30 August 2024, the applicant appeared via telephone at a callover hearing before Registrar Lindsay. At that callover hearing, Registrar Lindsay made orders programming the matter to a “final hearing on a date and time to be advised”.
On 30 January 2025, the parties were sent a listing notice (via email) advising them that the matter had been listed for a final hearing before this Court at 10.00 am on 21 March 2025. The parties were advised that the hearing would require “in person” attendance at the Court.
When the matter came before the Court, the applicant did not appear in person. Ms Rossetto appeared in person on behalf of the Minister. My associate made three unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant via the telephone number in the footer of their application for judicial review. The matter was then called three times outside the courtroom but, as outlined above, the applicant did not appear.
In those circumstances, counsel for the Minister applied to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Rules. Counsel also sought that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs of the proceedings, fixed in the sum of $6,500.
In support of that application, Ms Rossetto sought to rely on her affidavit (affirmed on 20 March 2025 and filed with the Court on that same day) (the Rossetto affidavit). The material annexed to that affidavit demonstrated that the applicant was served with the court book and put the applicant on notice of the matter remaining listed for final hearing before me on 21 March 2025 at 10:00am (Annexures TR-1 and TR-2 to the Rossetto affidavit).
Noting the correspondence from the Court and the Minister’s lawyers, the Court is satisfied that the applicant had been properly notified of the hearing date and time.
In light of the enquiries made, the Court is satisfied that the applicant did not appear at the final hearing of this matter.
In respect of the costs order sought on behalf of the Minister, the Court is satisfied that the amount sought is 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 1 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 Ms Rossetto was prepared to make oral submissions.
In the circumstances, the Court made orders to dismiss the matter for non-appearance and award costs to the Minister, as outlined at [2] above.
The Court notes that the applicant can apply to have his application reinstated pursuant to r 17.05(2)(a) of the Rules.
I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gerrard. Associate:
Dated: 21 March 2025
0
0
2