BXS20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 20

BXS20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 20

The appeal was dismissed because s 347(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) requires an application in the approved form and payment of the prescribed fee to occur within the prescribed period in order to engage the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The appellant's representative specified and authorised payment of only $1,673, not the correct prescribed fee of $1,731, and there was no evidentiary basis to find that the Tribunal could have obtained the larger amount from the credit provider. Payment of a lesser amount, even a slightly lesser amount, within time and later payment of the shortfall did not satisfy s 347(1)(c).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Concerning the Validity of an Application for Administrative Appeals Tribunal Review / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'application for Review of Part 5 Reviewable Decision' 'prescribed Fee' 'prescribed Period' 'payment by Credit Card' 'statutory Construction']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'application for Review of Part 5 Reviewable Decision' 'prescribed Fee' 'prescribed Period' 'payment by Credit Card' 'statutory Construction']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Concerning the Validity of an Application for Administrative Appeals Tribunal Review / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's representative placed the Tribunal in a position from which payment of the full prescribed review application fee could be required from the representative's credit provider." 'Whether an application for review was accompanied by the prescribed fee within the meaning of s 347(1)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) where only part of the fee was authorised within the prescribed period and the balance was paid later.' "Whether s 347(1)(c) requires payment of the prescribed fee within the prescribed period in order to engage the Tribunal's jurisdiction."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because s 347(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) requires an application in the approved form and payment of the prescribed fee to occur within the prescribed period in order to engage the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The appellant's representative specified and authorised payment of only $1,673, not the correct prescribed fee of $1,731, and there was no evidentiary basis to find that the Tribunal could have obtained the larger amount from the credit provider. Payment of a lesser amount, even a slightly lesser amount, within time and later payment of the shortfall did not satisfy s 347(1)(c).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed."]