Background
Gurjant Singh, acting without legal representation, sought leave to appeal from a Federal Circuit and Family Court judgment that had refused to set aside earlier orders dismissing his judicial-review proceeding in his absence. He filed the leave application in December 2024 and nominated an email address for service.
After the matter was allocated to Justice Rofe, the Court repeatedly contacted Singh at that address about the hearing and filing requirements. Singh did not respond, failed to file written submissions by the deadline, and did not appear at the hearing or seek an adjournment. Departmental records also indicated that he had left Australia in August 2025, his bridging visa had ceased, and he held no current Australian visa.
The Court’s Holding
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal under r 35.33(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). That rule permitted the Minister to seek dismissal when the leave application was called for hearing and Singh was absent.
Justice Rofe was satisfied that Singh had received proper and adequate notice because hearing notifications and reminders had been sent repeatedly to his designated email address. His failure to file submissions, respond to correspondence, appear at the hearing, or otherwise advance the case indicated that he did not intend to pursue it. The Court also ordered Singh to pay the Minister’s costs, fixed at $5,000, and amended the respondents’ names to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Administrative Review Tribunal.
Key Takeaways
- An application for leave to appeal may be dismissed under r 35.33(1)(a) when the applicant fails to appear after receiving proper notice.
- Repeated notices sent to an applicant’s designated service email can establish adequate notice of the hearing.
- The Court dismissed the proceeding for nonappearance and failure to prosecute; it did not determine the proposed appeal on its merits.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that self-represented migration litigants remain responsible for monitoring their nominated contact address, complying with filing directions, and attending scheduled hearings. Filing a leave application alone does not preserve a proceeding when the applicant subsequently takes no steps to advance it.
It also illustrates the Federal Court’s authority to dispose of an unattended leave application promptly and award fixed costs where the procedural requirements for dismissal are satisfied.