Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZKKC

(2007) 159 FCR 565; [2007] FCAFC 105

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Immigration
2. › Judicial review of migration decisions
3. › Time limits for applications
4. › Actual (as opposed to deemed) notification
5. › Whether notification requires physical delivery of written statement to applicant
6. › Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 430(1), 430B(6), 441A, 441C, 477
1. Immigration
2. › Judicial review of migration decisions
3. › Time limits for applications
4. › Notification to authorised recipient
5. › Whether giving document to authorised recipient constitutes actual notification of applicant
6. › Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 441G(1), 441G(2), 477
1. Immigration
2. › Judicial review of migration decisions
3. › Time limits for applications
4. › Deeming provisions
5. › Interaction between deemed notification provisions and requirement for actual notification
6. › Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(23), 430C, 430D(1), 441C, 441G(2), 477
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Jurisdiction
3. › Onus of proof
4. › Whether Minister bears onus of establishing lack of jurisdiction when challenging timeliness of application for judicial review

Quick Take

For the purposes of s 477 of the Migration Act, the time limit for applying for judicial review of an RRT decision commences only from physical delivery by hand of the s 430(1) written statement to the applicant personally. Giving the document to an authorised recipient under s 441G does not start time running. This effectively renders the s 477 time limit nugatory in most cases where the RRT uses standard notification methods (post, electronic transmission, or delivery to an authorised recipient).