The Listing

Amit Sharma from Punjab Kot Ise Khan learned the truth in hard way that western justice is widely misunderstood in our region Punjab.

On 25 September 2025, before Registrar Cummings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) at Adelaide, Sharma v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1577 (File No: SYG 1613 of 2023) was listed as a directions hearing.

The Applicant, Mr Amit Sharma, appeared in person by Webex. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was represented by Thomas Pattinson of Mills Oakley. The Administrative Review Tribunal filed a submitting appearance.

The proposed third to sixth respondents were:

• Advise 365 Pty Ltd – represented by Nicholas Poynder (Rosny Chambers), instructed by David Brooks of Kinslor Prince Lawyers

• Ms Parminder Kaur – represented by Nicholas Poynder (Rosny Chambers), instructed by David Brooks of Kinslor Prince Lawyers

• Inspire Coaching & Consultancy Group Pty Ltd – represented by Surinder Singh (by leave of the Court)

• Mr Surinder Singh – appearing in person by Webex

All of these proposed respondents are migration agents or connected companies, and were linked to the subject matter of fraud in public law.

The Expectation

On 8 July 2025, Registrar Cummings made a sealed order stating:

“The matter is listed for a further directions hearing by Microsoft Teams on Thursday 25 September 2025 at 9:30am SA time (10:00am VIC time).”

StampedOrder - 2025-07-08T13085…

That sealed listing was never vacated. No further sealed order altered the hearing from “directions” to “determination.” The applicant therefore reasonably expected the 25 September event to be procedural only. Importantly, the order gave no directions to the proposed respondents — they were not required to file or serve anything before that date.

The Contradiction

In the court notes accompanying the July order, a line stated:

“If the amended application for judicial review names any further proposed parties, then the issue of whether those parties should be joined as parties to the proceedings will be determined at the hearing in September.”

This sat in tension with the sealed directions. The official, binding directions described the hearing as “directions” and imposed no obligation on the proposed respondents. Yet the notes foreshadowed a determination — without any proper procedural framework.

Then, on the very eve of the hearing, multiple sets of submissions were served:

• On 24 September 2025 at 10:59 am, David Brooks (Kinslor Prince Lawyers) served a sealed copy of submissions for Parminder Kaur and Advise 365 Pty Ltd, prepared by their counsel Nicholas Poynder (Rosny Chambers), while acknowledging that they were “not currently parties to these proceedings.”

• On 24 September 2025 at 10:05 am, Thomas Pattinson (Mills Oakley), for the Minister, served the Minister’s sealed submissions.

This left the applicant, a self-represented litigant, with less than 24 hours to absorb and respond to two sets of formal submissions — while still being told the event was a directions hearing. To demand that is not merely unreasonable; it is oppressive, and a clear denial of natural justice.

The Reality

Despite the July sealed order, the Registrar treated the 25 September 2025 event as the moment to determine the joinder application. He refused the adjournment, dismissed the joinder, and made costs orders — even though one proposed respondent had not filed a response, and there was no sealed order requiring them to do so.

The Human Rights Concern

From a human rights perspective, this raises serious concerns:

• Right to be informed of the nature of proceedings – a directions hearing must not become a determination without notice.

• Right to prepare – decisions must not be made while responses are incomplete.

• Fraud in public law – when this is the subject matter, scrutiny must be heightened, not curtailed.

• Accessible reasons – decisions must be explained clearly, not buried in complex citations beyond the reach of self-represented litigants.

The Standard

As guaranteed by Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):

“All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

A fair hearing includes the right to know what type of hearing one is attending and to be given a genuine opportunity to prepare.

Leadership Responsibility

This is not only a breach of procedural fairness — it is a breach of Australia’s obligations towards fundamental human rights. Such conduct damages Australia’s international image and credibility, which affects all Australians — including me, my children, and future generations.

Australia never truly learned the lesson of the Stolen Generations, whose burden is still carried today. If such practices continue, future generations risk inheriting a new burden — the burden of an oppressive system that steals rights and fairness.

We will raise this breach with the senior leadership of Australia’s administration of justice:

• Chief Justice Will Alstergren AO – Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

• The Hon. Michelle Rowland MP – Attorney-General of Australia

• The Hon. Tony Burke MP – Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

• Chief Justice Stephen Gageler AC – High Court of Australia

A detailed report will be prepared and provided to them shortly. Leadership must act proactively to uphold human rights, protect Australia’s international reputation, and ensure future generations are not left to carry another legacy of injustice.