Hasan v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship

The case of Hasan v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship concerns the interpretation of section 66(2)(d)(iv) of the relevant Act and the scope of the requirement that the notification specify where an application for review can be made. The dispute arose when the appellants lodged an application for review of a delegate's decision outside the prescribed time limit, arguing that the initial notification did not specify all the locations where an application for review could be lodged. The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the application, holding that the notification was sufficient as it specified two of the five locations, and thus the application was out of time. The appellants appealed this decision.

The central legal issue before the court was the proper construction of section 66(2)(d)(iv) and whether it required the delegate to notify an applicant of all locations where an application for review could be lodged, or if notifying some of these locations was sufficient. The court had to determine whether the failure to specify all five locations rendered the notification ineffective, thus preventing the time for lodging an application for review from commencing.

The court found that the natural and ordinary meaning of section 66(2)(d)(iv) required the notification to state all places where an application for review could be lodged. This interpretation was consistent with the purpose of the provision and avoided any irrational or unjust consequences that might arise from a narrower interpretation. The court held that the federal magistrate had erred in finding that the notification was sufficient because it did not include all the locations where an application could be lodged. Consequently, the prescribed time for lodging the application for review had not begun to run, and the Tribunal's decision to refuse to hear the review was incorrect.

The court's decision was that the notification under section 66(2)(d)(iv) must specify all locations where an application for review can be lodged. The failure to include all five locations in the notification rendered it ineffective, meaning the time for lodging the application for review had not begun to run. The Tribunal's decision was therefore incorrect, and the appellants' application for review should have been accepted as timely. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of the Tribunal, and remitted the matter for reconsideration.