Wang, Yun Chang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor [1998] FCA 726

Wang, Yun Chang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor [1998] FCA 726

The proposed amendment was refused because the no evidence ground would be bound to fail. There was evidence on the departmental file of a letter dated 15 August 1998 addressed to the applicant at the address given under s 53(1), and evidence that an article addressed to that address was delivered and signed for on 18 August 1997, permitting the Tribunal to infer notification under s 53(3). In addition, the applicant's solicitor's letter conceded that the Department sent the decision by certified mail to an address nominated by the applicant, which was other material justifying the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's conclusion that the review application was filed out of time was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Review of a Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal / Application to Amend Application for Review
Outcome
Application to amend refused; application for review dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'notification of Decision' 'time Limit for Tribunal Review' 'no Evidence Ground of Review' 'amendment of Application']
['migration'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'notification of Decision' 'time Limit for Tribunal Review' 'no Evidence Ground of Review' 'amendment of Application']

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 Application for Review of a Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal / Application to Amend Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant was notified of the delegate's decision within the meaning of s 53(3) of the Migration Act 1958." 'Whether the proposed amendment would raise a ground of review under s 476(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 that would be bound to fail.' "Whether the Tribunal's conclusion that the application was filed out of time was attended by reviewable error."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendment was refused because the no evidence ground would be bound to fail. There was evidence on the departmental file of a letter dated 15 August 1998 addressed to the applicant at the address given under s 53(1), and evidence that an article addressed to that address was delivered and signed for on 18 August 1997, permitting the Tribunal to infer notification under s 53(3). In addition, the applicant's solicitor's letter conceded that the Department sent the decision by certified mail to an address nominated by the applicant, which was other material justifying the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's conclusion that the review application was filed out of time was...

Court Disposition

Application to amend refused; application for review dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ['The application to amend is refused.' 'The application for review is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs."]