Background
Ricky Reid sought judicial review of a February 2025 decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal affirming a delegate’s refusal to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Special Category (Subclass 444) visa. He alleged that the Tribunal’s assessment of his risk to the Australian community was legally unreasonable and raised additional complaints concerning procedural fairness and the treatment of his minor child’s best interests.
While the proceeding was pending, Reid asked to be voluntarily removed to New Zealand. He was removed on 2 October 2025 without first notifying the Court, despite receiving correspondence explaining the applicable migration practice note and how to contact the Court. After briefly communicating with pro bono counsel, Reid ceased contact. He did not respond to repeated notices of the May 2026 hearing and did not appear.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Vandongen dismissed the proceeding under r 5.23(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Reid was in default because he failed to attend the hearing and failed to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence. The Court found no apparent prospect that he would resume prosecution of the case and ordered him to pay the Minister’s costs, fixed at $7,900.
Although the Court was not required to investigate the merits of an absent applicant’s case, it concluded that Reid’s claims were in any event without merit. The Tribunal was required by Direction 110 to consider the risk of further offending and could take Reid’s past conduct into account. It had also considered his rehabilitation, community contributions and his child’s best interests, and it was not required to seek further evidence for him. There was no evidence supporting the alleged denial of procedural fairness.
The Court also addressed Reid’s removal without prior notice to the Court. Although the removal impaired the Court’s ability to control its proceeding, Justice Vandongen accepted that, in the case’s unusual circumstances, the Minister and the Minister’s representatives acted reasonably and gave Reid a reasonable opportunity to notify the Court consistently with the expectations in the Court’s migration practice note.
Key Takeaways
- A judicial-review applicant who fails to attend the hearing and does not diligently prosecute the case may have the proceeding immediately dismissed under r 5.23.
- In reviewing a refusal to revoke mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal may consider past offending when assessing community risk and is not obliged to obtain evidence that the applicant bears the burden of presenting.
- A migration practice note provides procedural guidance rather than substantive legal rights, but compliance remains important to the Court’s ability to manage proceedings involving detainees facing removal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical consequences of disengaging from migration litigation after removal from Australia: proceedings may be dismissed for default, with costs, even where the applicant previously expressed an intention to continue.
It also clarifies that the Court will scrutinize how voluntary removal is handled while litigation remains pending. Although the Minister’s conduct was accepted here, the reasons emphasize the importance of giving detained litigants a genuine opportunity to notify the Court and address the future conduct of their cases.