The Court dismissed an application for an extension of time to seek judicial review of a 2016 AAT decision, where the delay was over seven years and six months. The Court held that the delay was so extreme and the explanation so inadequate — the applicant claimed ignorance of the decision and pandemic-related difficulty accessing legal advice, but had approximately four years pre-pandemic and two years post-pandemic to act — that the merits of the underlying application would need to be particularly compelling to justify an extension. On the merits, the Court found no arguable jurisdictional error: the delegate's notification complied with s 66 of the Migration Act (distinguishing [name withheld] as the notification was sent directly to the applicant, not an authorised recipient), the Tribunal correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction due to the out-of-time review application, and the applicant was afforded but did not take up the opportunity to comment on validity.
The full text is available to signed-in members.