Panayiotou v Registrar Edwards - Proceeding Dismissed for Non-Appearance
Summary
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed proceeding WAD 452 of 2025 under Federal Court Rules 2011 r 30.22 after the self-represented applicant failed to appear at multiple case management hearings. The applicant, previously detained at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre, sought judicial review of a Registrar's decision to refuse document filing but was unable to attend scheduled hearings despite court accommodations.
What changed
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed proceeding WAD 452 of 2025 after the applicant failed to appear at two consecutive case management hearings on 4 March and 10 March 2026. Despite the Court providing audio-visual link and dial-in details following the applicant's relocation from Yongah Hill Detention Centre to Adelaide, the applicant did not attend either hearing. The Court issued warnings about potential dismissal for non-attendance, which the applicant acknowledged but did not address. The proceeding was dismissed pursuant to r 30.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
Self-represented litigants appearing before Australian Federal Courts should ensure they maintain contact with the Court and attend all scheduled hearings. Failure to appear, even with notice, may result in dismissal of proceedings. The case also illustrates the procedural requirements under Federal Court Rules regarding service addresses and the Court's willingness to accommodate parties via remote attendance mechanisms.
What to do next
- Monitor for updates if involved in similar proceedings
- Ensure attendance at all scheduled court hearings to avoid dismissal
Archived snapshot
Apr 10, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Original Word Document (71.3 KB) Federal Court of Australia
Panayiotou v Registrar Edwards [2026] FCA 421
| File number(s): | WAD 452 of 2025 |
| | |
| Judgment of: | LENEHAN J |
| | |
| Date of judgment: | 10 April 2026 |
| | |
| Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where applicant failed to appear – proceeding dismissed |
| | |
| Legislation: | Federal Court of Australia Act (Cth) s 37P
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 30.22 |
| | |
| Division: | General Division |
| | |
| Registry: | Western Australia |
| | |
| National Practice Area: | Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights |
| | |
| Number of paragraphs: | 26 |
| | |
| Date of hearing: | 10 April 2026 |
| | |
| Counsel for the Applicant: | The Applicant did not appear |
| | |
| Counsel for the Respondent | The Respondent filed a submitting notice |
ORDERS
| | | WAD 452 of 2025 |
| | | |
| BETWEEN: | PANOS PANAYIOTOU
Applicant | |
| AND: | REGISTRAR EDWARDS
Respondent | |
| order made by: | LENEHAN J |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 10 APRIL 2026 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- Pursuant to r 30.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the proceeding is dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LENEHAN J:
1 The applicant, Mr Panos Panayioutou, commenced this proceeding by an originating application for judicial review of a decision made by Registrar Edwards on 4 December 2025 to refuse to accept documents for filing under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
2 The applicant is self-represented. In support of the originating application, the applicant filed an affidavit, which he affirmed on 10 December 2025. The applicant also filed written submissions dated 4 February 2026 and 18 February 2026, without direction.
3 On 24 December 2025, the Registrar filed a notice submitting to any order that the Court makes in the proceeding, save as to costs.
4 On or around 18 February 2026, this matter was referred to a Registrar of the Court for the purposes of case management and the making of timetabling orders.
5 On 23 February 2026, Registrar Goucke listed the matter for case management hearing on 4 March 2026.
6 The applicant’s address for service in the originating application was listed as Yongah Hill Detention Centre, and the telephone number provided was that of Yongah Hill. However, it became apparent that the applicant was no longer in immigration detention, and was in fact located in Adelaide. As such, the matter was listed for case management hearing via audio-visual link with a copy of the orders emailed directly to the applicant.
7 On 23 February 2026, the applicant responded by way of email, requesting dial in details. The Court provided the applicant with the relevant dial in details.
8 At the first case management hearing before Registrar Goucke on 4 March 2026, the applicant did not appear via audio-visual link nor via the dial in mechanism provided by the Court. Registrar Goucke made orders noting the applicant’s nonattendance and adjourned the matter for a case management hearing on 10 March 2026.
9 A copy of the orders was sent to the applicant along with a teams link and dial in details for the next case management hearing. The applicant was asked to explain why he did not attend. He was warned that if he did not attend orders may be made in his absence or his case may be dismissed.
10 The applicant replied later that day. In his email, Mr Panayioutou did not provide an explanation for nonattendance and instead noted that “this should not stop the registrar from making processing arrangements for this matter.”
11 The applicant did not attend the case management hearing on 10 March 2026. Registrar Goucke noted the applicant’s nonattendance and listed the matter for final hearing for a date after 24 March 2026. The orders also raised for consideration whether the proceeding should be dismissed pursuant to s 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act (Cth), having regard to the applicant’s failure to appear at the case management hearings listed on 4 March 2026 and 10 March 2026, for hearing (the order provided that that issue was referred to a Judge of the Court for consideration at the hearing). The applicant was further directed to file an outline of submissions in support of the originating application by 30 January 2026.
12 On 13 March 2026, I directed my Associate to list the matter for hearing before me at 2.00pm (AEDT) on 27 March 2026 by audio-visual link. The applicant was notified by email at the email address given by him for service. The applicant was also sent details of the audio-visual link to appear at the hearing.
13 On 26 March 2026, the Court noted that the applicant had not filed an outline of submissions by 24 March 2026 pursuant to Order 1 of Orders dated 10 March 2026. The Court sent an email that day, directing the applicant to confirm if he seeks to rely on the submissions he previously filed without direction on 2 February 2026 and 18 February 2026, or whether he intended to file further submissions. The applicant did not provide a response.
14 The hearing was scheduled to commence at 2.00pm on 27 March 2026. The applicant called the Registry at 12.28pm regarding the hearing and asked for dial in details. He confirmed the hearing time in the conversation with Registry staff.
15 The applicant did not join the audio-visual link before 2.00pm. The applicant was called at 2.25pm as he had not connected and he said he thought the hearing time was 1.30pm. The applicant was directed to join the hearing by either the dial in details or the audio-visual link. The applicant had not done so by 2.30pm.
16 The hearing then commenced shortly after 2.30 pm. The matter was called and the applicant did not appear in person, via the dial in details or the audio-visual mechanism that was provided. I noted the applicant’s nonattendance and adjourned the matter for final hearing to 10 April 2026. The applicant communicated with the Registry that he joined via dial in details at 2.35pm, after the hearing had been adjourned. I note that this was approximately 35 minutes after the matter had been listed for hearing.
17 On 27 March 2026, the applicant was notified that the matter had been adjourned for hearing on 10 April 2026 at 2.00pm. The applicant was provided with the relevant audio-visual link and dial in details, and notified that failure to attend the hearing may result in an order dismissing the proceeding. The applicant was also reminded that he had not filed submissions pursuant to Order 1 of Orders dated 10 March 2026 and was asked to confirm if he intends to file any written submissions. The Court sent an email in similar terms to the applicant again on 9 April 2026.
18 The applicant did not provide a response.
19 As I have said, the hearing was scheduled to commence at 2.00pm on 10 April 2026. The applicant did not join the audio-visual link or dial in link before 2.00pm. Shortly before the hearing was due to commence, the Registry contacted the applicant, and he indicated that he did not propose to attend. The hearing commenced shortly after 2.00pm. The matter was called on and the applicant failed to appear.
20 In the circumstances, I am satisfied of the following.
21 First, the applicant has had adequate notice of the hearing today.
22 Second, the applicant has failed to attend two case management hearings before Registrar Goucke and has not filed any written submissions pursuant to Order 1 of Orders dated 10 March 2026.
23 Third, the applicant has (twice) failed to attend the scheduled final hearing of his matter (the initial hearing on 27 March 2026 and today).
24 The fact that the applicant has not appeared today also means that no party has appeared today when the proceeding was called on for trial. That enlivens the court’s powers under r 30.22 of the Rules. That rule provides:
30.22 No appearance by any party
If no party appears when a proceeding is called on for trial the Court may:
(a) adjourn the proceeding to a specific date or generally; or
(b) order that the proceeding be dismissed.
25 “Trial” is defined to include “any hearing other than an interlocutory hearing”: see schedule 1 read with r 1.51 of the Rules. Self-evidently, that includes this hearing.
26 I have already adjourned the final hearing of the matter once, in circumstances where the applicant had earlier failed to attend case management hearings listed by the Court. Having regard to those matters, and in the exercise of the powers under r 30.22, I dismiss the application.
| I certify that the preceding twenty-six (26) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Lenehan. |
Associate:
Dated: 10 April 2026
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Australia Federal Court Latest Judgments
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from FCA.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Australia Federal Court Latest Judgments publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.