Makarov v Minister for Home Affairs

In the case of Makarov v Minister for Home Affairs, the applicant, Victor Makarov, sought an extension of time to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to review the Minister’s decision to cancel his Australian citizenship. The application was made more than 12 years after the decision was made, and the AAT dismissed the application for an extension of time. Makarov appealed the AAT’s decision, arguing that it misconstrued s 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1976 (Cth) or ignored or incorrectly applied relevant principles.

The court considered whether the AAT misapplied the relevant statutory provisions and principles in denying Makarov an extension of time. The court noted that an applicant for an extension of time does not need to establish “truly exceptional circumstances” and that the Tribunal can grant an extension if it is satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so. The court also noted that the AAT considered relevant factors such as the explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the respondent, and the merits of the substantive application. The court found that the AAT applied the correct approach and that there was no error in the AAT’s decision.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs. The court held that the AAT did not misconstrue the relevant statutory provisions or principles in denying Makarov an extension of time, and that the AAT’s decision was reasonable in all the circumstances. The court found that the delay in making the application for review was significant and that Makarov had not provided an acceptable explanation for the delay. The court also noted that the delay had caused prejudice to the respondent and that there were public considerations that militated against the grant of an extension.