The Court dismissed an application for extension of time under s 477(2) of the Migration Act where the delay exceeded 1000 days, there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the sole proposed ground of review — that the s 66 notification was invalid because it was sent to an authorised recipient whose appointment had allegedly become stale — did not have reasonable prospects of success. The Court confirmed that there is no obligation on the Minister to verify the continuing currency of an authorised recipient's appointment before sending notification under s 494D, and that a notification letter referring to 'you' when sent to an authorised recipient does not fail to meet the clarity requirements of s 66(2)(d)(ii) as interpreted in DFQ17.
The full text is available to signed-in members.