The Court held that a Tribunal adjournment of approximately five to six weeks, caused by the member's unavailability due to circumstances beyond the Tribunal's control, did not constitute jurisdictional error in the nature of legal unreasonableness, even though the adjournment resulted in the applicant turning 23 and thereby facing an additional visa criterion she could not satisfy. The Court confirmed that the stringent and demanding standard for establishing legal unreasonableness was not met where there was an intelligible justification for the adjournment and the discretion was wide. The Court also held that the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Teoh principles have no application to non-discretionary visa criteria decisions.
The full text is available to signed-in members.