Federal Court of Australia
DUA19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1099
Appeal from: | DUA19 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 208 |
File number(s): | NSD 494 of 2025 |
Judgment of: | STEWART J |
Date of judgment: | 7 August 2026 |
Catchwords: | MIGRATION – protection visa application – refused – application for review dismissed by Administrative Appeals Tribunal – application for judicial review dismissed by Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Div 2) – appeal therefrom – where appellants in default of appearance at appeal hearing – appeal dismissed |
Legislation: | Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.16(1)(d), 36.75(1)(a)(i) |
Division: | General Division |
Registry: | New South Wales |
National Practice Area: | Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights |
Number of paragraphs: | 12 |
Date of hearing: | 7 August 2026 |
Counsel for the Appellants: | The appellants did not appear |
Solicitor for the First Respondent: | A Satyendra of MinterEllison |
Counsel for the Second Respondent: | The second respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs |
ORDERS
NSD 494 of 2025 | ||
| ||
BETWEEN: | DUA19 First Appellant DUD19 Second Appellant DUE19 Third Appellant | |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent | |
order made by: | STEWART J |
DATE OF ORDER: | 7 AUGUST 2026 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The name of the first respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.
2. The proceeding be dismissed.
3. The appellants be jointly and severally liable to pay the Minister’s costs of the proceeding.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(delivered ex tempore; revised from the transcript)
STEWART J:
1 Before the Court today is an appeal from Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in a migration matter. There are three appellants who have been given the pseudonyms DUA19, DUD19 and DUE19.
2 The appellants had applied for protection visas but their applications were dismissed by a delegate of the Minister. Their review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal failed in August 2019 when the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision. They then sought judicial review in the Div 2 Court. Their application was dismissed in February 2025.
3 The appellants lodged their notice of appeal in this Court in March 2025. Included in that notice at the designated place is an email address given by the appellants as required by r 2.16(1)(d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). That is the address at which they agreed to accept service of documents and other communications for purposes of the appeal.
4 The appellants have failed to appear on the calling of the appeal. The Minister seeks an order that the appeal be dismissed pursuant to r 36.75(1)(a)(i). That rule provides that if an appellant is absent when an appeal is called on for hearing, then the opposing party may apply to the court for an order that the appeal be dismissed. The Minister also seeks an order for costs jointly and severally against the appellants.
5 The communications to the appellants at their designated email address in the conduct of the appeal satisfy me that the appellants had proper and adequate notice of the hearing today. In that regard I refer to the following.
6 On 22 May 2026, the appellants were advised by email from the Court that the appeal hearing would be heard today. That email also attached programming orders that had been made requiring the filing and service of submissions and the like. On the same day, MinterEllison, the solicitors for the Minister, emailed the appellants also advising them of the hearing.
7 On 14 July 2026, MinterEllison emailed the appellants requesting their consent for the timetable to be varied. That email also referred to the appeal being listed for hearing today.
8 On 15 July 2026, MinterEllison emailed the appellants serving a copy of the Minister’s written outline of submissions and again advising the appellants that the matter is listed for hearing today. On the same day, one of the appellants replied from their designated email address to MinterEllison’s email of the previous day and attached signed consent orders effecting minor extensions to the timetable for the filing of submissions. That response demonstrates that the appellants’ designated email address was an active and functioning email address.
9 The appellants were again advised of the hearing being today by email from the Court on 6 August 2026.
10 As submitted on behalf of the Minister, it is significant that the appellants have taken no steps in the prosecution of their appeal other than filing their notice of appeal and consenting to an adjustment of the timetable as referred to above.
11 In the circumstances, it would appear that the appellants have no intention of pursuing their appeal. In any event, I am satisfied that they are in default of appearance after having received proper notice of the hearing.
12 For those reasons the appeal should be dismissed under the rule identified by the Minister and the appellants should jointly and severally pay the Minister’s costs of the proceeding.
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Stewart. |
Associate:
Dated: 7 August 2026
