CAV18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 173

CAV18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 173

The appeal must be allowed and the Tribunal’s decision quashed because, following the Full Court decisions in DFQ17 and BMY18, notification letters in the same form as used in the present case do not satisfy s 66(2)(d)(ii) of the Migration Act, as they do not clearly state when the review period commences, and therefore the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the review application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['notification Requirements Under Migration Act' 'merits Review Rights' 'precedent and Stare Decisis']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['notification Requirements Under Migration Act' 'merits Review Rights' 'precedent and Stare Decisis']

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

Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Full Court's decision in BMY18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 189 was correctly decided and should be followed by a single judge of the Federal Court" "Whether notification letters under s 66(2)(d)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) satisfied statutory requirements to 'state' the time in which a review may be made" 'Whether the primary judge erred in concluding the Tribunal had no jurisdiction because the appellant was out of time']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal must be allowed and the Tribunal’s decision quashed because, following the Full Court decisions in DFQ17 and BMY18, notification letters in the same form as used in the present case do not satisfy s 66(2)(d)(ii) of the Migration Act, as they do not clearly state when the review period commences, and therefore the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the review application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'Orders 2 and 3 made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 11 July 2019 be set aside.' 'The decision of the second respondent (AAT) made on 27 March 2018 (AAT case number 1732691) be quashed.' 'The matter be remitted to the second respondent (AAT) for determination according to law...