Background
The applicant, identified under the pseudonym YRPQ, filed an application on 9 January 2026 seeking judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal), which had upheld the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’s refusal to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The grounds of review alleged that the Tribunal considered irrelevant matters, conducted an unfair hearing, and failed to consider the interests of the applicant’s minor daughter, who was said to be homeless. Justice Derrington observed that these grounds were mere assertions that did not properly identify any jurisdictional error, were insufficiently particularised, and would have been liable to be struck out on a ministerial application.
After filing the application, YRPQ returned to his country of citizenship and effectively ceased participating in the proceedings. The Court made orders in March 2026 requiring him to file evidence and submissions, but those orders were vacated in April 2026 to allow time to arrange pro bono legal assistance. Solicitor Christian Hearn, together with counsel Andrew Boe and Lachlan Cameron, agreed to act on a pro bono basis, but were unable to obtain any instructions from YRPQ despite numerous attempts to contact him. The Court also sent several emails to which YRPQ did not respond.
On 2 June 2026, the Court ordered YRPQ to notify the Court and the Minister’s representatives of his intention to pursue the application by 4:00 pm on 16 June 2026, with the case management hearing listed for 17 June 2026 available to him by audio-visual link. YRPQ neither complied with the order nor appeared at the hearing. Neither the Court, the Minister’s solicitors, nor the pro bono solicitor had received any contact from him as of the hearing date.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Derrington dismissed the application for want of prosecution under rr 5.22 and 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which empower the Court to dismiss proceedings where an applicant fails to comply with court orders, attend hearings, or prosecute proceedings with due diligence. Drawing on Lenijamar Pty Ltd v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1990) 27 FCR 388, the Court identified YRPQ’s conduct as fitting both of the principal categories warranting dismissal: an unwillingness to co-operate with the Court and the other parties, and continuing non-compliance causing unnecessary delay and expense to the Minister. The Court was satisfied that the only reasonable inference from the totality of the applicant’s conduct was that he had lost interest in the application and did not intend to pursue it.
The Court also ordered YRPQ to pay the first respondent’s costs. Justice Derrington drew on analogous decisions, including Moana v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 3) [2019] FCA 2052, where the Chief Justice had dismissed similar proceedings after a removed applicant failed to engage with pro bono counsel, and Hadchiti v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 386, where proceedings were dismissed after a voluntarily departed applicant failed to attend a case management hearing despite ample notice.
In a notable additional observation, Justice Derrington remarked that YRPQ’s failure to engage with the pro bono legal team undermined the Court’s ability to attract practitioners to provide free legal assistance, warning that such conduct risked destroying the goodwill the legal profession extends to the Court in supporting unrepresented and financially disadvantaged litigants.
Key Takeaways
- A migration applicant who files for judicial review but then departs Australia and ceases all engagement with the Court, pro bono counsel, and the opposing party will face dismissal for want of prosecution under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 5.22–5.23.
- The Court will draw the inference that an applicant has abandoned proceedings where repeated attempts at contact by the Court, pro bono solicitors, and the respondent’s legal representatives have all gone unanswered without explanation.
- Arranging pro bono representation for an unrepresented applicant does not shield that applicant from dismissal if the applicant refuses to provide instructions; the Court retains and will exercise its power to dismiss.
- Abuse of pro bono arrangements carries institutional consequences: the Court expressly flagged that such conduct jeopardises the profession’s willingness to volunteer legal services to those who cannot afford representation.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Australian federal courts will not indefinitely carry dormant migration matters on their dockets simply because an applicant is overseas or unrepresented. Even where the Court has gone out of its way to secure free legal assistance, persistent non-engagement — failing to respond to court emails, ignoring compliance orders, and providing no instructions to appointed counsel — will be treated as abandonment, and dismissal with costs will follow.
The judgment also carries a broader message for the administration of pro bono schemes in migration litigation. Justice Derrington’s pointed remarks about the risk to institutional goodwill signal that courts regard the misuse or neglect of pro bono resources as a matter of systemic concern, not merely a procedural irregularity affecting the individual case. Practitioners and litigant support organisations should take note when advising clients about the obligations that accompany court-facilitated legal assistance.