Mohammad v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 466

Mohammad v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 466

Although the Tribunal's letter was sent to the last address provided by the applicant and s 441A(1) would prima facie deem notice to have been duly given, Singh compelled the conclusion that reg 5.03 was invalid in so far as it purported to operate with respect to invitations to appear before the Tribunal. Because reg 4.35D made the prescribed notice period start when the applicant received notice, and the Minister accepted that the applicant did not receive notice before the scheduled appearance date, the prescribed period of notice required by s 425A(3) never began to run. The Tribunal's decision therefore had to be set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Concerning a Protection Visa Application / Federal Court Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
The application was allowed; the Refugee Review Tribunal decision made on 25 August 1999 was set aside and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for further consideration.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'notice of Hearing' 'registered Post' 'deemed Receipt' 'validity of Regulations' 'judicial Review']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'notice of Hearing' 'registered Post' 'deemed Receipt' 'validity of Regulations' 'judicial Review']

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

Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Concerning a Protection Visa Application / Federal Court Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 441A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) operated so that the notice was duly given when sent by registered post to the last address for service or residential address provided to the Tribunal.' "Whether reg 5.03(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) operated so that the applicant was taken to have received the Tribunal's letter of 23 June 1999 on 30 June 1999, giving at least the prescribed notice required by s 425A(3)." 'Whether reg 5.03 was invalid in its application to invitations to applicants to appear before the Refugee Review Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Tribunal's letter was sent to the last address provided by the applicant and s 441A(1) would prima facie deem notice to have been duly given, Singh compelled the conclusion that reg 5.03 was invalid in so far as it purported to operate with respect to invitations to appear before the Tribunal. Because reg 4.35D made the prescribed notice period start when the applicant received notice, and the Minister accepted that the applicant did not receive notice before the scheduled appearance date, the prescribed period of notice required by s 425A(3) never began to run. The Tribunal's decision therefore had to be set aside.

Court Disposition

The application was allowed; the Refugee Review Tribunal decision made on 25 August 1999 was set aside and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for further consideration.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 25 August 1999 be set aside.' "The applicant's application to the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 1 May 1997 be referred to the Tribunal for further consideration." "The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding."]