Chetcuti v Commonwealth of Australia

The High Court of Australia considered the case of *Chetcuti v Commonwealth of Australia*. The dispute concerned the validity of a notice issued under section 169 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act) to the applicant, Mr Chetcuti, requiring him to attend an interview. Mr Chetcuti argued that the notice was invalid because it was not served on him personally, but rather left at his residential address.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the service of the notice under section 169 of the Act, which requires service "on the person", could be effected by leaving the notice at the person's residential address, or if it mandated personal service. This involved an interpretation of the statutory language and the common law principles of service.

The Court reasoned that the ordinary meaning of "on the person" in a statutory context, particularly in relation to official notices, implies direct and personal delivery. While acknowledging that statutes can prescribe alternative methods of service, the Court found that section 169 of the Act did not provide for or imply any such alternative. Therefore, leaving the notice at Mr Chetcuti's residential address did not constitute valid service under the provision. The Court applied the principle that statutory requirements for service must be strictly adhered to.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the notice invalidly served.