SZUUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 123

SZUUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 123

The Tribunal was entitled to rely on the address for service last provided by the appellants for the purposes of sending the hearing invitation, thus engaging the statutory deeming provisions. The evidence also supported the primary judge's finding that the appellants did in fact receive the invitation, and there was no denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error.

Parties
First Appellant: SZUUR; Second Appellant: SZUUS; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Notice Requirements, Protection Visa, Jurisdictional Error
Migration Procedural Fairness Notice Requirements Protection Visa Jurisdictional Error

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SZUUR

First Appellant

SZUUS

Second Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal proceeded to determine their review application in their absence
  2. 2 Whether the invitation to attend the Tribunal hearing was validly sent under ss 441A and 441C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal’s reliance on the last address for service was proper under the statutory deeming provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to rely on the address for service last provided by the appellants for the purposes of sending the hearing invitation, thus engaging the statutory deeming provisions. The evidence also supported the primary judge's finding that the appellants did in fact receive the invitation, and there was no denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the first respondent's costs in an amount of $8,290.