Chow v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Chow (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) to refuse an adjournment of a scheduled hearing. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was the respondent. The applicant contended that the MRT had erred in law by refusing to grant an adjournment to allow him to obtain legal advice.

The central legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the MRT had acted unlawfully in refusing the applicant's request for an adjournment. This involved considering the principles governing the exercise of the MRT's discretion to grant adjournments, particularly in circumstances where an applicant seeks legal representation.

Justice Emmett found that the MRT had failed to properly consider the applicant's request for an adjournment. The Tribunal's decision to refuse the adjournment was based on an erroneous understanding of its obligations. The Court held that the MRT had a duty to afford the applicant a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice, especially given the complexity of migration law and the potential consequences of the decision. The refusal to grant the adjournment was therefore found to be an error of law.

The Court made orders setting aside the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal and remitting the matter to the MRT for redetermination according to law.