REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
YATES J:
1 On 14 October 2024, I made orders dismissing two interlocutory applications filed by the applicant: McGinn v Australian Information Commissioner (No 2) [2024] FCA 1196 (Reasons 2). The first interlocutory application sought a stay of the proceeding pending a foreshadowed appeal in the High Court. The second interlocutory application sought my disqualification from this proceeding and any other proceeding in which the applicant is a party.
2 In Reasons 2, I noted (at [8]) that the applicant had elected not to appear at the hearing of the two interlocutory applications. Despite that fact, I determined each interlocutory application substantively, rather than dismissing them for want of appearance.
3 On 17 October 2024, the applicant filed another interlocutory application (the new interlocutory application), seeking an order in these terms:
To set aside judgments on 14/10/24 per r39.05(a) as they were made in the absence of the Applicant.
4 The new interlocutory application was listed for hearing today. Once again, the applicant has elected not to appear.
5 On Friday, 1 November 2024 at 4.44 pm the Court received an email from the applicant, relevantly stating:
I will not attend the hearing on Monday because it is ultra vires to list my application for hearing without direction orders for the parties to make submissions.
Should Justice Yates dismiss the application without parties' submissions, I will appeal the decision.
Should Justice Yates dismiss the application with respondent's oral submissions, I will apply set-aside 'in my absence'.
6 The applicant's reasons for not appearing at the hearing of the new interlocutory application are difficult to understand. The purpose of today's listing was to enable the applicant to move on her new application and to make submissions in support of it. The Court has not denied her the opportunity to make submissions. She has denied herself that opportunity by, once again, choosing not to appear. I will determine the new interlocutory application substantively.
7 Turning, then, to the substance of the new interlocutory application, the applicant appears to be under the misapprehension that any order made against her in an application she has brought,
