COG18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, COG18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs, affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision and by proceeding to determine the application without allowing the applicant to present further submissions. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia before Judge Kendall.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal’s decision lacked substantive analysis, whether this failure to provide substantive reasons amounted to jurisdictional error, and whether the Tribunal erred by proceeding to a decision without allowing the applicant to attend or provide written submissions, particularly given the applicant's delayed response to an invitation to provide information. The Court was also required to consider whether the applicant's email seeking assistance constituted a "response" or "comment" within the prescribed period.

The Court reasoned that a failure to comply with the requirements of section 430(1) of the Migration Act 1958, which mandates the provision of reasons, findings of fact, and the evidence on which those findings are based, does not in itself constitute jurisdictional error. Citing *Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZLSP*, the Court explained that the purpose of section 430(1) is to expose the decision-making process to scrutiny to enable judicial review for jurisdictional error, and that a failure to comply with its provisions may lead to an order compelling compliance rather than invalidating the decision. The Court found that the applicant's email of 13 April 2018 was not a substantive response to the invitation to comment on the information provided, and that the Tribunal was therefore entitled to proceed with its review. While the Court expressed concerns about the brevity of the Tribunal's decision, it concluded that no jurisdictional error had been demonstrated.

The appeal was dismissed.