The Court held that s 426A(1A)(b) of the Migration Act does not require the Tribunal to consider the merits of protection claims before dismissing an application for non-appearance; the word 'further' in 'without any further consideration' presupposes only that some prior consideration occurred, which was satisfied here by the Tribunal's pre-hearing assessment that it could not make a favourable decision on the material alone. The Court also held that the Tribunal's failure to expressly address the option of rescheduling under s 426A(2) did not establish jurisdictional error, as no inference of oversight arose from the absence of reasons on a discretionary procedural power, and the decision to dismiss (with reinstatement available) was not legally unreasonable. Additionally, the Court confirmed that even if jurisdictional error had been established, relief would have been refused on discretionary grounds because the applicant failed without adequate explanation to exercise the more convenient alternative remedy of applying for reinstatement under s 426A(1B).
The full text is available to signed-in members.