FJH17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

In the case of FJH17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the applicants, who arrived in Australia as unauthorised maritime arrivals, applied for a visa and subsequently sought judicial review of the delegate's decision to refuse their application. The applicants' lawyer and migration agent provided submissions to the Authority, which included both accurate and erroneous information. The applicants argued that the Authority's failure to contact them or their representative to clarify the incorrect information was legally unreasonable.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Authority's failure to make further inquiries was legally unreasonable. The court considered the statutory scheme, the High Court's decisions in DUA16 and CHK16, and the Authority's actual actions. The statutory scheme established in Part 7AA of the Act provides a default position that the Authority will review decisions "on the papers" and has no duty to get new information. The High Court's decision in DUA16 highlighted the statutory context and the high threshold of legal unreasonableness, which suggested that a failure to seek further information will rarely be legally unreasonable.

The court found that the Authority's approach of setting aside the incorrect information and considering the balance of the submissions without obtaining further information was not legally unreasonable. The court relied on the statutory context, the guidance provided by the High Court's analysis in DUA16, and the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying the consideration of new information. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.