Legal Research
Cases
Huang v MIAC

Huang v MIAC

Case [2011] FMCA 271 6 May 2011

Appeal

Costs

Jurisdiction

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUANG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2011] FMCA 271

MIGRATION – MRT decision – application to Tribunal outside time limit after notification to agent – whether agent was authorised to receive correspondence – implied actual authority from circumstances of agency – Tribunal correctly found absence of jurisdiction – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.98, 280, 347, 494D
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg.4.10

Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
Jalagam v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 1417; 221 FLR 202
Jalagam v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 197
Jalagam v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] HCASL 190
NAWZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 199
Russo v Aiello (2003) 215 CLR 643
Thornley v Tilley (1925) 36 CLR 1

Applicant:

HONGZHE HUANG

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 3 of 2011

Judgment of:

Smith FM

Hearing date:

8 April 2011

Date of Last Submission:

15 April 2011

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

6 May 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr L Karp

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Parish Patience

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr A Markus

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed in accordance with Federal Court Rules O.62. Pursuant to r.21.02(2)(c), refer those costs for taxation under O.62.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3 of 2011

HONGZHE HUANG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

A delegate made a decision on 6 May 2010, which refused to grant a further Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa to Mr Huang. Notice of the decision was posted to an address for correspondence given to the Department of Immigration in the visa application form. The address was that of Mr Wong, an agent engaged by Mr Huang to make the internet visa application on his behalf. On 15 June 2010, Mr Huang applied to the Migration Review Tribunal for review of the decision, but the Tribunal found that the strict 21 day time limit for application prescribed under s.347(1)(b)(i) of the Migration Act and Migration Regulations reg.4.10(1)(a) had expired on 7 June 2010. Mr Huang now disputes this conclusion, and seeks an order by way of mandamus to compel the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction.
Only one aspect of the reasoning of the Tribunal was challenged before me, and the Tribunal’s discussion of the relevant legislation and its application to Mr Huang’s circumstances was not otherwise disputed. It is unnecessary for me to repeat those parts of its decision.
The present issue is whether, in fact and law, Mr Huang authorised
Mr Wong to include in the visa application a notification that Mr Wong was a person authorised to receive correspondence on behalf of
Mr Huang. For the reasons which follow, I have concluded that Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Huang v MIAC

Details

AGLC: Huang v MIAC [2011] FMCA 271
Case: [2011] FMCA 271
Decision Date: 6 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Huang v MIAC, the dispute revolves around the applicant's application for review of a decision made by the second respondent, the Motor Accident Insurance Commission. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the validity of the application and the subsequent costs associated with the proceedings. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a sufficient ground for the review of the decision rendered by the second respondent. This required a detailed examination of the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles governing judicial review in this context.

The court meticulously reviewed the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the procedural fairness of the decision-making process and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the second respondent. In reaching its decision, the court applied established principles of administrative law, particularly those concerning the scope and standards of judicial review. It was determined that the applicant had not demonstrated a compelling basis for the court to interfere with the decision of the second respondent. The reasoning hinged on the absence of any procedural errors or material errors of fact that warranted a review.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application and directed that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that the burden of proving grounds for judicial review lies with the applicant. As such, the application was unsuccessful, and the costs were to be taxed in accordance with the Federal Court Rules. This outcome underscores the importance of a robust and transparent decision-making process, particularly in administrative contexts where significant individual interests are at stake.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed in accordance with Federal Court Rules O.62. Pursuant to r.21.02(2)(c), refer those costs for taxation under O.62.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Huang v MIAC [2011] FMCA 271

Most Recent Citation

1513717 (Migration) [2016] AATA 3267

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

Menina (Migration)
[2022] AATA 1031 Para 23

…ings on behalf of an applicant in the ordinary conduct of an application, unless it knows the agent does not. [3]See, for example, Huang v MIAC [2011] FMCA 271 where the Court observed at [17] that there may be circumstances where particular aspects of an agent’s authority are not the subject of express discussion…
2009288 (Refugee)
[2020] AATA 3434 Para 6

…ng done so, therefore the Department correctly notified [Ms A], rather than the applicant, of the refusal of his protection application: Huang v MIAC [2011] FMCA 271.…
Grace (Migration)
[2019] AATA 2107 Para 7

…e circumstances of the agency and that the Department was correct to send the decision notification to the authorised recipient. [2] Huang v MIAC [2011] FMCA 271 (Smith FM, 6 May 2011).…
1513717 (Migration)
[2016] AATA 3267 Para 3

…In Huang v MIAC [2011] FMCA 271, the applicant’s agent (who was not a registered migration agent) completed a visa application form on the applicant’s behalf and nominated himself as authorised recipient, the applicant claimed that he had not authorised his agent to nominate himself as authorised recipient and the…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Jalagam v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship
[2009] FCA 197 Para 6

…My judgment was upheld by Edmonds J (see Jalagam v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 197). His Honour held: 36. There is no requirement in s 494D (or elsewhere) for the notice appointing the authorised recipient to be in any particular form; any notice in writing meeting the elements of subs 494D(…
Jalagam v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 1417 Para 5

…I have previously considered this provision in the context of the making of a visa application on the internet, in Jalagam v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 1417; 221 FLR 202. In that case, as in Mr Huang’s case, the notification of an authorised recipient was performed by an agent who completed an interactive…
Le v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2007] FCAFC 20 Para 5

…this. 42. Mr Jalagam’s solicitor referred me to Le v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 157 FCR 321, [2007] FCAFC 20, where the Full Court referred to s.494D: 24 Nevertheless, an unequivocal requirement of s 494D(1) is that the Minister must give a document to the Authorised Recipient instead of to an…
NAWZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCAFC 199 Para 13

…of subdivision C of Division C of Part II of the Act, in which s.98 appears (see NAWZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 199 at [16]).…
Russo v Aiello
[2003] HCA 53 Para 9

…f which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and in the power of the other to have contradicted” see: Russo v Aiello (2003) 215 CLR 643 at [11]). iv)If Mr Huang’s instructions in relation to completing the visa application were ambiguous, and they could reasonably be understood in more than one sense, “h…
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd
[1995] HCA 24 Para 8

…sed tests of implied terms in contractual relationships. These were summarised by Brennan CJ, Dawson and Toohey JJ in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 at 422: Implied term The implication which the appellants seek to make is based upon the presumed or imputed intention of the parties. In that contex…
Thornley v Tilley
[1925] HCA 13 Para 9

…ood in more than one sense, “he is bound by whichever of those senses the agent bona fide acts upon” (cf. Thornley v Tilley (1925) 36 CLR 1 at 12). There is no evidence in the present case which casts doubt upon Mr Wong’s bona fides when inserting his own address for service in the visa application. v) Mr Huang’s…
Christie v Permewan, Wright and Co Ltd
[1904] HCA 35 Para 5

…ow a person to act for the purposes of a statutory provision through an agent (cf. Christie v Permewan, Wright & Co Ltd (1904) 1 CLR 693 at 700, McRae v Coulton (1986) 7 NSWLR 644 at 663, and AB v LB (Mental Health Patient) [1980] 1 WLR 116 at 121, cited in Bennion FAR, Statutory Interpretation — A Code (2 nd ed, B…
Jalagam v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
[2009] HCASL 190 Para 7

…When dismissing an application for special leave (see Jalagam v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] HCASL 190), Heydon and Bell JJ said: 10. In the applicant's summary of argument it is contended that Edmonds J adopted a construction of s 494D(1) that is inconsistent with decisions of the Full Court of th…
[1980] 1 WLR 116
[1980] 1 WLR 116 Para 5

…Wright & Co Ltd (1904) 1 CLR 693 at 700, McRae v Coulton (1986) 7 NSWLR 644 at 663, and AB v LB (Mental Health Patient) [1980] 1 WLR 116 at 121, cited in Bennion FAR, Statutory Interpretation — A Code (2 nd ed, Butterworths, 1992), at pp 799‑800). Considerations of convenience all point towards the section being in…
McRae v Coulton
45 ER 540 Para 5

…statutory provision through an agent (cf. Christie v Permewan, Wright & Co Ltd (1904) 1 CLR 693 at 700, McRae v Coulton (1986) 7 NSWLR 644 at 663, and AB v LB (Mental Health Patient) [1980] 1 WLR 116 at 121, cited in Bennion FAR, Statutory Interpretation — A Code (2 nd ed, Butterworths, 1992), at pp 799‑800). Conside…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
280, 347, 494D, 98 4 mentions
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
4.10 1 mention