Saleem v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

Zahid Saleem, an applicant for a Temporary Work (Skilled) (subclass 457) visa, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that upheld a delegate's refusal to grant him the visa. The case, Saleem v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether to grant an adjournment to the applicant, who claimed to be unrepresented and unable to afford a lawyer, despite having one appointed on his behalf. The court had to consider the operation of Part 9 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 and rule 22.06, as well as sections 190 and 191 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021, in light of the overarching purpose of civil practice and procedure provisions.

The court found that despite the applicant's claims of being unrepresented and financially strained, he still had a solicitor on the record, Mr. Imran Warraich, who had ongoing obligations to assist the applicant. The court observed that Mr. Warraich had not filed a Notice of Withdrawal as Lawyer, as required by the rules, and remained the solicitor on the record. The court emphasised the importance of the overarching purpose of facilitating the just resolution of disputes according to law, as quickly, inexpensively, and efficiently as possible. It also noted that a lawyer may be in default if they unreasonably fail to prepare for a hearing. Despite the Minister's opposition to the adjournment, the court granted a brief adjournment to allow the applicant time to either obtain alternative legal representation or prepare his case, while reserving the question of costs for the final hearing.

The court made several orders to manage the proceedings, including an adjournment until 21 March 2022, deadlines for the filing of written submissions, and liberty to restore on two days' notice. The court also noted that the question of costs associated with the adjournment, including any order for costs thrown away, would be determined at the final hearing, with a particular focus on the solicitor's obligations under rule 22.06 of the Rules.