No-show solicitor frustrates senior judge by leaving colleague to take responsibility

No lawyer was named, but HWL Ebsworth Lawyers were listed as the minister’s solicitors in Judge Given’s recently published decision.

When no one at the firm appeared at a final hearing last December, Judge Given said her associate made unsuccessful attempts to phone the solicitor on record, the solicitor who had carriage of the matter, special counsel, and another solicitor known to the court.

The associate was eventually able to connect with a lawyer whose details were included in an out-of-office message, but she was unable to assist “beyond suggesting that she might make some further inquiries to see if a colleague might be able to attend at some point”.

At that point, Judge Given made declarations that the minister had defaulted by failing to attend the final hearing and failing to respond to the proceedings “with due diligence”. The applicants were granted leave to file an amended application, and the matter was adjourned.

When it next came before Judge Given, the solicitor with carriage explained that personal circumstances, communication, and data entry failures at the firm caused the December date to not be diarised.

He candidly acknowledged his responsibilities and apologised to the court, including for wasting time and resources. Judge Given accepted he “genuinely understood” the significance of the lapses.

VIEW ALL

“What is less apparent, and also concerning, is why an employed solicitor was sent to account alone for the breaches.

“That is not to say that he ought not to have explained himself in circumstances where many of the lapses in communication and record keeping are acknowledged by him as being his own. Those matters were ones to which, it transpires from the affidavit evidence, were uniquely his to explain,” Judge Given said.

However, it is the solicitor on record for the party who is “ultimately answerable” to the court for their conduct, Judge Given said.

“Quite aside from his clear and ultimate liability for the lapses of a solicitor in his employ, it fell to the solicitor on the record to ensure more broadly that the systems in his litigation practice were effective.

“By reference to what is recorded … they proved not to be,” she said.

When questioned about the missing solicitor on record, the solicitor with carriage said it was suggested they would both appear in court, but the latter wanted to “appear to take full responsibility”.

While a “chivalrous act” on the part of the solicitor with carriage, Judge Given said the solicitor on record should have understood his attendance was required.

Citation: KGO24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC2G (25 March 2026)