As a professional interpreter, migration matters are what I deal with for a couple of hours every day. One hearing I attend regularly is the callover hearing (migration matters). These are usually administered by an associate to a judicial registrar, because callovers normally don’t need a judge.
Below I explain what happens at callover hearings, the different pathways your case can take, and what applicants must be prepared to say (from final hearings to extension applications and the newer summary-judgement pathway). This is written from the interpreter’s front-line view — practical, direct, and aimed at anyone working in migration, law, or interpreting.
What is a callover hearing and why it matters
A callover hearing is a procedural event used to give directions and prepare the matter for the next steps. At callover the registrar will usually give orders so the parties know whether the application will proceed to:
- a final hearing,
- an extension of time hearing,
- a summary-judgement hearing (see note below), or
- be dismissed.
The 35-day rule (judicial review lodgement deadline)
If an applicant receives a negative decision from the administrative review tribunal (ART) and wants the Federal Court to review that decision, they usually need to lodge their application with the Federal Court within 35 days.
Final hearing pathway (if lodged within time)
If the applicant lodged within the 35-day timeframe, and the minister seeks final judgment on this case, the registrar will usually say at callover that the application will be allocated to a judge for a final hearing.
At the final hearing, the applicant must clearly explain the matter they want the court to review — in particular, identify the jurisdictional error the ART made and give the particulars of that error.
Extension of time hearing (if the applicant missed the 35-day deadline)
If the applicant did not lodge within 35 days, they may be allocated to an extension of time hearing. At that hearing, the applicant must explain to a registrar why they could not file within the 35-day period — for example, a car accident or urgent family matters.
- If the registrar is satisfied with the reason and believes the applicant has an arguable case, the Court may allocate the case to a judge for a final hearing (where the applicant will argue the jurisdictional error).
- If the registrar is not satisfied, the application will be dismissed and the applicant will be ordered to pay the Minister’s legal costs.
Summary-judgement hearing (new terminology, rule change noted)
Summary-judgement hearing — based on a new court rule in September 2025 (formerly known as the Summary Dismissal Hearing). This pathway most commonly arises where the ART dismissed the application for no appearance (the applicant did not attend the ART proceeding) and the applicant did not reinstate the ART application.
The respondent (the Minister) may say the applicant’s Federal Court application has no reasonable prospects of success. At the summary-judgement hearing, the applicant must persuade the registrar that their application has merit and that they deserve a full final hearing.
- Successful: the matter is allocated to a judge for a final hearing.
- Unsuccessful: the application is dismissed and the applicant will be ordered to pay the Minister’s legal costs.
Always expect opposition from the respondent
In every hearing above, the applicant will face the Minister’s lawyer. The lawyer’s role is to oppose the applicant’s position — they act in the Minister’s best interests and are not there to assist the applicant.
Quick reference — types of hearings
| Type of hearing | Nature | Complexity | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Callover hearing | Administrative | Simple & straightforward | Give directions / prepare for the next hearing |
| Extension of time hearing | Legal argument | Intermediate — applicant and respondent argue | Convince the registrar you have legitimate reasons for lodging late |
| Summary-judgement hearing | Legal argument | Intermediate — applicant and respondent argue | Convince the registrar you have reasonable prospects of success |
| Final hearing | Full judicial review | Complex | Applicant needs to explain the jurisdictional error made by ART |
A real moment from the interpreter’s booth
The most ridiculous verbal submission I ever heard as an interpreter from an applicant was:
“I believe the ART made no errors, and the error was caused by me because for some reasons I didn’t attend the ART proceeding.”
When I was interpreting, I thought: the whole point of filing a Federal Court review is to identify the jurisdictional error made by the ART. If you claim the ART made no errors, why would you even apply for a review? I’m not a registrar or a lawyer, so I can’t predict the consequence — but from someone who repeatedly hears the role of the Federal Court explained in court, it’s plainly unwise to make such comments.
#migrationlaw #federalcourt #calloverhearing #judicialreview #interpreting #legalinterpreting #AAT #immigration #legalpractice
BL Translations 