Federal Court of Australia

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1449

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application for leave to appeal filed on 1 December 2024 be dismissed pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

2.    The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $5,000.

3.    The name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

4.    The name of the second respondent be amended to Administrative Review Tribunal.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ROFE J:

1    By an application for leave to appeal filed on 1 December 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) delivered on 22 November 2024 in Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1268. By that judgment, the primary judge dismissed an application to set aside orders made on 10 September 2024 dismissing the applicant’s judicial review proceeding in his absence.

2    The applicant is self-represented.

3    The applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal in this Court in December 2024. Included in that notice at the designated place is an email address given by the applicant as required by r 2.16(1)(d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). That is the address at which he agreed to accept service of documents and other communications for the purposes of the appeal. All references to emails to the applicant in these reasons are to emails sent to the email address specified in the applicant’s application for leave to appeal.

4    Following the allocation of the proceeding to my docket, my chambers contacted the parties on 13 July 2026 by email requesting that they provide dates of mutual availability and proposed orders timetabling the matter for hearing. On 20 July 2026, the solicitors for the first respondent (the Minister) informed the Court that, despite attempts to engage with the applicant concerning his availability and proposed consent orders, no response had been received.

5    By email dated 21 July 2026, my chambers informed the parties that the Court proposed to list the matter for hearing at 10.15 am on 1 October 2026 and invited the applicant to advise by 24 July 2026 whether there was any objection to that course. No response was received from the applicant.

6    Accordingly, by email dated 27 July 2026, my chambers informed the parties that orders had been made in chambers listing the matter for hearing at 10.15 am on 1 October 2026. The applicant again did not respond.

7    Those orders continued directions previously made by Registrar McCormick on 9 December 2024. Relevantly, the applicant was required to file and serve written submissions by 17 September 2026.

8    The applicant failed to comply with those directions. No written submissions were filed. By email dated 18 September 2026, my chambers drew that non-compliance to the applicant’s attention and requested that he attend to the filing and service of submissions as a matter of priority. No response was received.

9    By further email dated 24 September 2026, my chambers provided details of the hearing, noting that it would take place in person and providing information concerning remote access to the proceeding. That correspondence again drew attention to the applicant’s failure to file submissions and requested an acknowledgement of receipt. No acknowledgement was received.

10    The applicant did not appear when the matter was called for hearing at 10.15 am on 1 October 2026. Nor did he contact my chambers seeking an adjournment, providing an explanation for his absence or otherwise indicating an intention to prosecute the proceeding.

11    At the hearing, Ms Petrovski, solicitor advocate for the Minister, orally sought an order dismissing the application pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a) of the Rules. That rule provides that, where an application for leave to appeal filed pursuant to r 35.12(1) is called on for hearing and the applicant is absent, the opposing party may apply for the application to be dismissed. As the present proceeding was instituted by the filing of a Form 117 application for leave to appeal pursuant to r 35.12(1), and the applicant failed to appear at the hearing, the Minister was entitled to make such an application.

12    The multiple communications to the applicant at his designated email address in the conduct of the application for leave to appeal satisfies me that he has had proper and adequate notice of the hearing today. In that regard, he has been sent multiple email notifications and reminders of the hearing today on 27 July, and on 18 and 24 September 2026.

13    Ms Petrovski referred to Annexure KP5 to her affidavit made on 3 September 2026, which contains the applicant’s records on the Integrated Client Services Environment held by the Minister’s Department. The records show the applicant as being “offshore” and that he departed Australia on 20 August 2025. The records also show that the applicant’s WE-050 visa (the bridging visa E held by the applicant) has ceased, and that he does not currently hold an Australian visa.

14    I note that the applicant has taken no steps in the prosecution of his application other than filing an application for leave to appeal. In the circumstances, it would appear that the applicant has no intention of pursuing the application. In any event, I am satisfied that he is in default of appearance after having received proper notice of the hearing.

15    In the circumstances outlined above, I am satisfied that an order dismissing the application pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a) of the Rules should be made.

16    The Minister seeks costs in the sum of $5,000. I will make an order that the applicant pay the costs of the Minister in the sum of $5,000.

Associate:

Dated:    1 October 2026