Applicant S1746 of 2003 v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S6 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
APPLICANT S1746 OF 2003
Applicant
and
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 27 APRIL 2005, AT 4.50 PM

HAYNE J: This is an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal Court refusing the applicant an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal from an earlier judgment of a single judge of the Federal Court.

It was the opinion of the Federal Court that the applicant had no prospects of success in an appeal based either on any of the matters put before the Federal Court on the earlier occasion, or any of the new matters sought to be raised by the applicant, and accordingly dismissed the application.

The applicant being unrepresented, this application falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. The applicant’s written case reveals no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision to refuse the extension of time. It is not necessary to consider whether an appeal to this Court against that refusal would be competent. The application to this Court should be refused.

Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 4.51 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had affirmed a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (MIMIA) to refuse the applicant's claim for a protection visa. The applicant, identified as S1746 of 2003, sought judicial review of the AAT's decision in the High Court of Australia. The core of the dispute concerned whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims for protection.

The High Court was required to determine whether the AAT had failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness by not giving him adequate notice of the adverse information that was to be used against him in the assessment of his protection visa claim. Specifically, the court considered whether the AAT's reliance on certain information, which the applicant had not been given a proper opportunity to address, constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice.

In their joint judgment, Hayne and Callinan JJ found that the AAT had indeed erred in law. Their Honours held that the principles of procedural fairness require that a party be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material that is likely to influence the decision-maker. The AAT had failed to provide the applicant with sufficient notice of the specific adverse information it intended to rely upon, thereby denying him a fair hearing. The court concluded that the AAT's decision was vitiated by this error.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside, and the matter be remitted to the AAT for redetermination according to law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established